An Amusing Set of Questions

Stumbled upon this particularly goofy set of questions for atheists.  Why not?  I'll bite...

"Do you take pleasure in telling lies or are you just so gullible that you believe any anti-religious lie you hear?"
Neither.

"Are you only capable of mimicking and copying arguments you heard from Dawkins and other atheists?"
No.

"What’s the reason that you continue to use racist atheists as viable sources, celebrate racist atheist biologists and racist/atheist countries?"
Unsupported premise.  The sources are not specified.

"Do you have any independent mind of your own or ability to question what other atheists say or think?"
Yes on both.

"Why do you consider any criticism of atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs as “trolling” but not consider condemning, ridiculing, or making fun of religion as “trolling”?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why have you intentionally remained silent in opposition to racism but not silent in opposition to Intelligent Design, Creationism, and many other things?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why do you value high IQ as being worth more than contributions?"
I have no idea what this question is asking.

"Why do you discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality?"
I'm not sure why someone would want to believe something without evidence, and I'm not sure how the questioner is using the other two terms.

"Why are you an anti-science fanatic who strongly opposes free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning?"
False premise.  I'm strongly pro-science.

"Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?"
False premise.  I don't hate anyone who hasn't earned it.

Well, that was constructive...

More Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at the list of questions for atheists on the "Who Is He?" website...

"How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that the universe has a "high degree of design."

"How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?"
Lots of mythology is based on real people, places or events.

"Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that "no Bible prophecy has ever failed."

"How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?"
False premise.  Neither Jesus nor crucifixion are mentioned in Psalm 22.

"How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?"
False premise.  No units of time are given in the passages in Daniel.

"How could any mere human pinpoint the precise birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?"
False premise.  The term "Messiah" does not appear in Micah.

"How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?"
Unsupported premise.  The given odds are not established.

"How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?"
False premise.  The verse refers to someone named Immanuel.

"How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?"
Unsupported premise.  This information about copied manuscripts has not been established.

"In what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as "the Good Book"?"
False premise.  Only Christians regard the Bible this way.

"Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?"
False premise.  Best-seller lists did not exist in 1436.

"If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?"
It evolved from the need to live together in societies to survive.

"If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?"
False premise.  A human being's molecular structure is not random.

"Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?"
I cannot, because I am not an expert in the required fields.  However, I could direct the reader to sources on the topics.

"If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have been willing to face death for what they knew to be a lie?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence and characteristics of the people mentioned in the question have not been established.

"How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?"
Assuming the question refers to Jesus, unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?"
Not enough information to answer; the thinkers in question would need to be specified.

"Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?"
No.

"If time never had a beginning, but rather goes backwards infinitely or has gone through an infinite number of cycles, then how is it possible that we are here today?"
Unsupported premise.  Whether or not time had a beginning has not been established.

"How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals?"
I am unqualified to answer questions on neuroscience, but I would be happy to direct the reader to sources.

"But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that nature "creates" has not been established.

"Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?"
No.

"When you look at a lot of creatures such as zebras, turtles, butterflies, bees, lady bugs, leopards, etc., you will notice amazing color patterns designed into them. Who came up with those?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that they had to be "come up with" by a "who" is unsupported.

"Does nature have a “taste” in colors, and does it know which colors go together nicely?"
No.

"How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?"
False premise.  The idea of irreducible complexity has been debunked.

"How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?"
"How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?"
Thermodynamic laws and entropy only hold true in closed systems.

"How come there are some things on our planet seem that they are especially designed for us? For example, the 2 most comfortable colors are blue and green , which happen to be the color of the sky and most of the nature around us."
False premise.  Those things do not seem designed at all.

"Who chose those colors to be there , before earth even existed?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that those things require a "who" to choose them.

"Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's holy books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that anything in the Bible describes a future event.

"Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?""
False dichotomy.  It has not been established that these are the only two options regarding truth.

"Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?"
No.

"Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?"
Yes.

"How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?"
Not enough information to answer; the believers in question would need to be specified.

"Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?"
False premise.  They have not.

"What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?"
Not enough information to answer; sources would need to be specified.

"Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of such worldwide attempts has not been established.

"Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?"
Unsupported premise.  This fact has not been established.

"How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?"
Unsupported premise.  Evidence is not provided.

"If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?"
"If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?"
"If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?"
Unsupported premise.  The historical accuracy of these accounts his not been established.

"How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?"
False premise.  The cited passage contains no such testimony.

"If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He show evidence of lunacy in any other areas of His life?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?"
No.

"How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?"
False premise.  The Bible is not one unified message.

"Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?"
False premise.  Evolution does not describe how life originated, only how it diversified.

"What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?"
If by "theological awareness," you mean belief in some sort of deity, there are evolutionary hypotheses to account for the development of religious beliefs, with varying degrees of support.  I can direct the reader to sources if desired.

"If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that the universe is the effect of a cause has not been established.

"How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that people have experienced heaven or hell has not been established.

"How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?"
Not enough information to answer.  The people and "miracles" in question would need to be specified.

"Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?"
I would absolutely believe in any god if compelling evidence could be provided.

Stripping God Down

In a Fox News blog post, Johnnie Moore makes the tired argument that atheists are religious, but he has strip away much of the definition of God in order to do it:

"Religion certainly includes an idea of a God under whom man is inherently subservient, but religion also governs the belief system undergirding the way people think about, and live, their lives.  It tells them who their authority is and it informs their values and behavior."

To illustrate his point, he says:

"First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore."

Christians, is this really how you want to define God?  Anything to which you're subservient and thus compels you to make value choices?

By this definition, you employer is God.  Your employer has authority over you, and you have to make choices in line with making him or her happy.  You might want to stay up late watching TV, but being at work the next day requires you to do the ethical thing and go to bed instead.

No omnipotence.  No omnipresence.  No supernatural element.  No Scriptures...  THIS is how you define God?

Amazing how you have to water Him down to make this bogus argument about atheists.

Relying on the Gospels

I do love it when apologists pretend to be experts on information sources, as Eric Metaxas did in a recent Christian Post article.  For the record, it's unclear whether Metaxas is an expert in anything, since the bio page on his website fails to mention his degree.

In his article, Metaxas meekly tries to provide support for the idea that the Gospels are reliable sources.  His whole piece is based on a false premise, and he offers exactly two arguments to back himself up:

"But what if the Gospels are indeed what they claim to be? Eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?"
False premise.  They never claim to be that.  They aren't written in the first person, and even if you believe every word of them, they describe numerous events that the author could not have been present for, like the temptation of Jesus in the desert, as well as the resurrection itself.  So Metaxas is defending the idea that they are something that they aren't, even with the most literal reading.

Here is the entirety of his support:
"If the young church wanted to make up a rosy propaganda piece about its leaders, they would not have painted the picture of Peter as a coward and the other disciples as consistently clueless!"
False dichotomy.  He's saying that if they aren't propaganda, then they're true.  And the best he can do to argue against their being propaganda is to suggest that he'd have written them differently if they were?

"Or take the role of women in the Gospel of Mark. They were the first to discover the empty tomb. But in the Jewish and Roman worlds, women couldn't serve as witnesses in court! So there's no way Mark or any of the gospels would rely on their testimony-unless, of course, the women really were eyewitnesses and what they said really happened."
But if the Gospel authors wouldn't have relied on their testimony, then it wouldn't matter whether that testimony was true or not!

Apologists everywhere are going to have to do a lot better than that if they want to convince those of who really are experts on the reliability of sources.

Thoughts For Young Men is Banned

The conversations with Thoughts For Young Men, on this blog and on American Vision, have been very stimulating for me; they’ve been at times fun, at times challenging.  They’ve even compelled me to revise my views on some issues, and for that, I give him credit.

So it’s profoundly disappointing to see him take everything that he’s learned about my views and lie about it to pretty much anyone who will listen.  The comments on this blog and on American Vision contain lots of examples, and I try to point them out when I see them.  But this was the last straw for me:

Thoughts For Young Men had, ironically, brought up Hitler in a conversation about the supposed moral weaknesses of non-religious people.  I had stated categorically my belief that what Hitler did was morally wrong.  I further stated that I believe people who think Hitler’s actions are morally right are wrong as well.  And this is how he restated that for the readers of American Vision:

“Don’t get me started again about how you think that what Hitler did was okay”

That really is about the most blatant, offensive lie someone could tell about my view of morality.

Thoughts For Young Men apparently believes that American Vision is a safe place to slander me in such a way.  So he can just stay there.

No further comments from Thoughts For Young Men will be approved on this blog.

If you’re interested in more of what Thoughts For Young Men has to say, he has two websites; I don’t know what’s on them, since I’m not:

http://thoughtsforyoungmen.com/
http://www.theinconsistentatheist.com/

So long, Thoughts For Young Men; it’s been good to know ‘ya.

Shame on Me

...for not spotting the glaring flaw in this whole Bible-as-evidence argument sooner.  Think of the time and energy I could have saved.

The argument hinges on one of three premises:
1) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, it must be true.
or
2) Since the Bible says a few things that can be shown to be true, the whole thing must be.
or, a combination of the two:
3) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, then it's possible.  Since the Bible says a few things that are true, anything it says that is possible must also be true.

The trouble is, all of these are false premises.

Whether or not something cannot be disproven is irrelevant to its veracity.  Consider the following claims:
a) My first name is Billy.
b) My first name is Bob.

Since I don't reveal my true identity, you cannot disprove either claim.  However, either one could be true.  It's possible that neither are true.  It's possible that both are true, if my name is Billy Bob.

So who cares if a claim can't be disproven?  The fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

As for both of the other premises, the fact that Bible might get one thing right doesn't mean that it's right on anything else. Jerusalem exists, but that doesn't mean that God does.  Athens exists, but that doesn't mean that Zeus does (even though Homer mentions both).

The fact remains that in all of the above cases, there's still no positive support provided for any claims.

So you know what, I'll play along...  I concede that it's possible that every single thing the Bible says is true.  I'll even go further:  I concede that it's possible that every single story ever told about all of the gods humanity has ever believed in (over two thousand in all) is true.

But the fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

So, with that in mind, when someone can show me why I should believe anything in the Bible is true (and not just possible), I'll be happy to do so.

CARM Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at Matt Slick's questions for atheists on the CARM website:

"How would you define atheism?"
The belief that no gods exist.

"Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?"
False premise; I act according to what I believe, but I believe many more things than just "there is no God."

"Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?"
False premise.  God has no existence to work against.

"How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?"
"How sure are you that your atheism is correct?"
Same answer to both: I am thoroughly convinced.

"How would you define what truth is?"
That which can be demonstrated to be accurate in the real world is true.

"Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?"
Because no one claiming any gods exist have been able to support that claim with evidence.

"Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?"
I would not use either term to describe myself.

"Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?"
It is only a worldview to the extent that it is a belief that people share.

"Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?"
I am only antagonistic to Christians who work for special treatment under the law for their religion.

"If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?"
I never believed in the Christian god.

"Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?"
"Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?"
"Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?"
Same answer to all three: Not necessarily.

"Must God be known through the scientific method?"
As opposed to what?

"If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?"
If this immaterial god had any interaction with the material world, there would be material evidence for that.

"Do we have any purpose as human beings?"
"If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?"
We only have that purpose which we choose to undertake.

"Where does morality come from?"
The need to live together in societies.

"Are there moral absolutes?"
"If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?"
I do not believe there are moral absolutes.

"Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?"
I use the word evil merely as an adjective to describe very bad actions.

"If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?"
My conscience.

"What would it take for you to believe in God?"
Compelling evidence.

"What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?"
I'm not sure, but an all-knowing god would know.

"Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?"
By definition of the word evidence, it would need to be verifiable.

"Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?"
Not enough information to answer the question.  Safety of a society is not determined solely by religious beliefs.

"Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion)."
Yes.

"If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?"
No.

"If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?"
"If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?"
I recognize that evolution is a fact, but we do not currently have enough information to know if the universe will expand forever, or if the outcome you're asking about is possible.

Answering Bodie Hodge

I always find it telling that Christian activists post a bunch of questions for atheists on websites that don't allow us the opportunity to respond.  I'll address a recent set of questions from Bodie Hodge below.

"Are you tired of all the evil associated with the philosophy of atheism—Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on?"
False premise; atheism isn't a philosophy.

"Even if they claim to believe in the God of the Bible, they are not really living like a true Christ follower (who strives to follow God’s Word), are they?"
Sure they are.  If they say they think Christ is divine, they're a Christian.

"Do you feel conflicted about the fact that atheism has no basis in morality (i.e., no absolute right and wrong; no good, no bad?)"
If you mean "that atheism makes no claim about morality," then no.  It doesn't bother me that morality has nothing to do with belief in gods.

"Are you tired of the fact that atheism (which is based in materialism, a popular worldview today) has no basis for logic and reasoning?"
If you mean "that atheism makes no claim about logic and reason," then no.  It doesn't bother me that those things have nothing to do with belief in gods.  Materialism, by the way, is not part of the definition of atheism.

" Is it tough trying to get up every day thinking that truth, which is immaterial, really doesn’t exist? "
False premise; I believe in truth.

"Are you bothered by the fact that atheism cannot account for uniformity in nature (the basis by which we can do real science)? "
No, since it doesn't claim to.

"Why would everything explode from nothing and, by pure chance, form beautiful laws like E=MC2 or F=MA?"
False premises; the Big Bang wasn't an explosion from nothing, nor do things in nature happen by chance.

"Do you feel like you need a weekend to recoup, even though a weekend is really meaningless in an atheistic worldview—since animals, like bees, don’t take a day of rest or have a weekend?"
False premises.  Time off from work is certainly meaningful.

"So why should atheists?"
Why should any human?  Because it's nice not to have to work seven days a week.

"Why borrow a workweek and weekend that comes from the pages of Scriptures, which are despised by atheists?"
False premise; my employer didn't say anything about Scriptures when I was offered my schedule.

"And why look forward to time off for a holiday (i.e., holy day), when nothing is holy in an atheistic worldview?"
Because it's time off from work.

"Do you feel conflicted about proselytizing the faith of atheism, since if atheism were true then who cares about proselytizing?"
False premise; faith and proselytizing are religious concepts.

"Are you weary of looking for evidence that contradicts the Bible’s account of creation and finding none?
False premise; I'm not.

"Do the assumptions and inconsistencies of dating methods weigh on your conscience when they are misrepresented as fact?"
False premise; dating methods confirm one another.

"Where do you suppose those missing links have gone into hiding?"
Missing links from what to what?

"In fact, why would an atheist care to live one moment longer in a broken universe where one is merely rearranged pond scum and all you have to look forward to is . . . death, which can be around any corner? "
False premises; I'm a human being who looks forward to lots of things.

"I invite you to reconsider..."
I politely decline until such time as you can provide evidence to support the claims that you make in your invitation.

Bible contradictions...

...are really not the central issue in why the Bible is not considered reliable information.

The issue is that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had no understanding of even the most basic facts about the world around them.  They didn't know that microorganisms cause disease, or the the world is spherical and orbits the sun, or that humans have only existed for the merest blip on the time scale of the universe.

The Bible is mythology, the attempt by primitive humans to make sense of things by casting them in terms of angry deities and protector gods.  In that sense, the biblical god is no different from the gods of the Greeks, Egyptians or Sumerians.

What it comes down to is this:  Why should we believe a word the Bible says?  If something in the Bible is true, it can be shown to true without using the Bible.  If Jesus walked the earth at all, why are there no other records of him?  If hundreds of people witnessed a dead man come back to life (which would be pretty big news), why did that not find its way into any other historical accounts?  If the Egyptians have one of the best-documented histories of any ancient civilization, why do they have no record of ever taking the Hebrews as slaves?

Whether or not the Bible is false is not the issue; the issue is that it can't be shown to be true.  It must be assumed to be true, to be taken on faith.  Why should we do that?

The answer to the contradiction involving the age of Jehoiachin goes as follows:  The Bible gives two different ages for when he became king because he became king twice.  Great!  Did we discover historical records confirming that he became king twice, thus putting to rest the idea that one of the Bible passages might simply be wrong?  No.  We say that he MUST have become king twice because the Bible MUST be true.

Apologists will not accept the possibility that the Bible might be slightest bit wrong on anything; they just assume it's always right, for no reason.

I'm not willing to assume that.  I don't give the same benefit of the doubt to the Koran or to Homer or to Norse mythology.  Why should I do so with the Bible?

You want me to believe that any idea expressed in the Bible is true?  Demonstrate that it's true.

Contradictions

I've been told there are no contradictions in the Bible; only different perspectives of the same event, all of which are true.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

Definitions

I couldn't help noticing that Thoughts For Young Men has not defined a single term that I've asked him to define.  From here on out, I'll be asking for a definition on every claim that he makes.  Failure to provide the definition will result in a claim being treated as unsupported and thus refuted.

I will continue the conversation on evolution when the term "kind" is defined.

I will continue the conversation on the accuracy of the Bible when the terms "rabbit" and "cud" are defined.

I will continue the conversation on knowledge when the term "basis" is defined.

All comments on these subjects from Thoughts For Young Men will be blocked as refuted claims until this information is provided.

Even once these definitions are provided, any equivocation of them will render the claim refuted until a source supporting the definition can be cited.

Unhappy about the rules?  Tough.  It's my blog.

Observation

This is a big enough deal that I'd like to give it its own post.

Information gets from the real world into our brains through the senses.  We observe.  Is there really any doubt about this?

For Christians, is the information about God simply beamed directly into your brain by God himself?  If so, why is there a Bible that requires you to use your senses to read it?

Can we finally agree once and for all that we can obtain no information about the real world except through observation?

Wrapping up the Threads

Thoughts For Young Men,

I'd like to use this thread to give you an opportunity to make any additional claims or arguments that you haven't made yet; my hope is to consolidate the conversation so that we're not chasing each other around all of the other threads.  I'll use the comments section of this post to respond to any comments you make on others, and I'll redirect you from those to this one.  Just trying to clean up the conversation threads for the sake of clarity.

Please do be advised that the rule forbidding the repeating of refuted claims is in effect.  If I've refuted it, and you've provided no reasonable response to the refutation, the claim is dead and will blocked.

Patience Expired

Comment moderation is being activated for this blog.  All comments will now be reviewed before being posted.  Comments guilty of any of the following will be blocked:

1) Ad hominem attacks.  Personal insults directed at me will not be tolerated.

2) Threats, no matter how veiled.  No more "You're going to hell comments."  Even if you believe that I am, comments like that serve no useful purpose.  Same with "God will judge you" and similar things.

3) Repeating refuted claims.  I would call this the "Thoughts For Young Men Rule" if I wasn't still creeped out by the pedophile connotations of that name.  Even the most cursory examination of my recent exchanges with this person shows a pattern of making the same bogus claim over and over, and I'm sick of it.  It's a waste of time.

Make your claim and support it.  If I refute it, you're welcome to address my argument doing so.  But until you can overcome the objection, you don't get to keep claiming the same thing.

I want this blog to be an exchange of ideas.  But as soon as we're going round in circles, the conversation's over.

Lie

That's going to be my responses to anything you're dishonest about from here on out, Thoughts For Young Men.  You have nothing further to contribute here.  Move on.  You're a miserable excuse for a human being who is nothing more than a waste of space, mentally masturbating to his god fantasy.  You're no longer a source of entertainment for me.

Today's Liar for Jesus: Christian Post editors

Lie:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-misquote-palin-bible-remarks-in-texas-billboard-refuses-to-apologize-91204/

Truth:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/04/atheist-group-apologizes-for-misquoting-palin-but-defends-billboards-intent/

Be sure to check back often to see if CP ever retracts or corrects that story.

Huh?

Bizarre letter to the editor in the Toronto Star recently; makes you wonder if they have any standards at all for accepting such letters...

The author takes on someone for DARING to suggest that an atheist head up Canada's religious freedom agency, although it's a given that only religious people are fit to lead an office devoted to secularism.

But the really weird part is the double contradiction in the final two paragraphs.  The author cites a definition of religion that includes worship in something supernatural, then accuses atheists of worshiping their own intellect, which ISN'T supernatural.

She closes by wanting someone who DOES believe in something supernatural (confirming that atheists don't) in the office in question.

I'm even more amazed that a newspaper would print a letter with such glaring stupidity than I am that someone is that stupid to begin with...

Thought For Young Men, You're Done

It has now come to the point that you are simply going over the same arguments again and again without contributing anything new to the discussion.  I've addressed every single objection you've made, and you keep trotting out the same things over and over.  You're picking out one word or sentence to criticize while ignoring the rest.  You're continuing to intentionally mischaracterize my views or claim that I haven't explained things that any reader can see that I have.  You're simply spinning your wheels now, and doing so dishonestly.

Keep lying about things we've discussed, and I'll keep pointing out the lies.

If you have any arguments that you can make and rationally support, you're welcome to do so. 

My view, however, is that if you were capable of doing so, you would have by now.  All you've offered are logical fallacies and dishonest attacks on things we've already been over.  You might as well quit wasting both our time and move on.