Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Atheists worship Satan!



Ah, good old Pat Robertson, so we Atheists are really Satanists? I wonder how true that is, or should we trust that his holiness knows the 'TRUTH'. He's been dead on with all his predictions and.... oh wait he hasn't... hmmm. Maybe he's talking out his ass again. Get rid of your fiance because he doesn't believe in god? I think it's the other way around. IF she's crazy into this religious stuff get the frick out dude! All the super religious people I've ever known have been some really warped people. Every little part of their lives is about religion, they have no other thoughts, it's insane!

But if you want to plan a marrige amoungst the religious and none religious, make some rules ahead of time. Plan what are you doing for holidays, how will the children be raised, stuff like that. Decide what topic will be off limts and STICK TO IT!

Best,

Brett

25 comments:

Channing said...

...wow...just...just wow. SO let me get this straight, old man river believes that if you don't believe in god, the you worship th devil by default? He's kidding right?...right?

Brett said...

Hi Channing,

I wish he was. Hhe's a crazy old coot;)

Best,

Brett

Azie said...

Oh religiously extreme people. I think it's great how they assume there's only one type of atheist or the like. Technically speaking, I'm an atheist because I didn't feel emotionally or spiritually enriched from practicing any religion. I chose to remove myself from religion simply because it's such a personal thing that it's not respectful to those who do whole-heartedly believe in whatever they practice. I, quite simply, don't care if there's one god or 1000. I willingly listen to other's views though, until they become preachy and decide it's their job to convert me.

It's important to be respectful no matter what people's views are about something like religion. If you're not able to have to do so, then you just end up sounding like a bigot and an idiot. Who wants to listen to anyone like that? Opinions are great, but you're only one person; that means your 1 opinion doesn't count for the rest of humanity.

You're most definitely right about how they should find a middle ground. Communication and respect for one another is the only way to go about having a relationship with someone with such drastically different views than you.

What's this business Roni mentioned about being a "true Christian" anyway? How can you really judge something like that objectively? Last I checked, you can't.

-Azie

Brett said...

Azie,

I don't agree with always being respectful. Sometimes yes, but some groups and people don't deserve respect. Respect should be earned not given, especially when it come to claims that can not be proven.

I used to be more live and let live, but they refuse to let that happen. They push and push and eventually you have to push back. They are like my dogs if you give them in inch they will take a mile;)

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

Christians believe all have sinned and apart from accepting Jesus as a substitute are separated from God. God’s standard is moral perfection: no “almosts”, no “I’m a good person who makes mistakes”, no “my good deeds outweigh my bad deeds”, no karma tug of war; simply you are either perfect and accepted or imperfect and rejected.

Christians believe everyone since the fall of Adam starts out imperfect and therefore rejected. You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but that is what the Biblical Jesus stated.

Now I’ve never met anyone willing to say they were perfect and never made one moral error. Even those who live lives as atheists admit they make poor moral judgments from time to time. Christians don’t live up to the Christian standard and non-Christians do not live up to their own self established moral standards. So everyone agrees that they are not perfect and therefore morally unacceptable by the standards set up by the Christian God. I do not believe in Allah, but I do realize if I applied Muslim moral standards to my life I would fail. Same deal, you don’t have to believe in Jesus to understand how his principles would apply to you if they are true.

Christians believe Jesus came as a sacrifice to pay for our sins so we could be accepted by God, not by our actions, not by our own works, but by trusting in the atoning work of God.

So let's be fair; just like Christians, atheists who believe they are right tend to generalize all those who fall outside of the boundaries of their beliefs into groups. Christians say those who are outside the Christian circle are things like sinners, unsaved, lost, reprobate, etc. Not too flattering. Of course atheists tend to group us outside of their belief system as wackos, nut jobs, Christian extremists, oh and now warped and insane. Again none too flattering.

If someone is serious about their faith it naturally becomes the lens that all of life is viewed through. How can you believe all of life was created by God and is designed to glorify God, but just don’t over do it. So if at your core you believe all of life is centered around God, it makes no sense to partner yourself with someone who is going to share your finances, your bed, your heart, your mind, and your time, but is also going to be diametrically opposed to the foundation of your way of life.


-Steve

Brett said...

Steve,

I almost completely agree with you. I do think a marriage between the 2 is a bad idea. But I don't think it would be impossible. I know it would drive me insane if Jess decided to try and convert me all the time. If things are agreed upon at the beginning it might work, but it's doubtful. But to give only one side isn't really giving this person all the information they need. He didn't even consider it if she decides to do it. Remember she been with the fiance longer than she's 'been with' god. How and anyone make in informed decision by looking at only one side of the coin?

The working for Satan thing is annoying. I understand what they are trying to do, it's difficult for them to wrap their heads around us not being in their belief system so they plug us in where they 'feel' we belong, with their enemies for some reason. It's actually rather insulting if you really think about it. They're trying to force us into their religion, it's like the Mormons baptizing people into their religion without their consent. It doesn't really hurt anyone it's just really stupid.


And once again Atheism is NOT a belief system. It's based on evidence, and since there is no scientific evidence for god we take the side there is no god. That's all. You believe in god BUT that in itself is not a system. You need to add all the other stuff that the bible brings in and the rituals/morals your particular brand of Christianity believes, that is the system. Just believing in god doesn't tell you how your supposed to worship him. And yes, I find belief in ANY religion crazy, but that's me. This isn't really pertinent to the conversation, just a reminder:)

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

Atheism is a belief system. The evidence that leads you to believe one way is the same evidence that leads me to believe another.

You choose to view all of life through an atheistic lens, that does not make you insane or crazy, it makes you consistant. Same goes for Christians.

The real test in all of life is not what is accepted but what is true. People who choose atheism based on scientific proof have a very low standard for something being true when it comes to matters of origin of life.

Atheism offers no proof for abiogenesis for example. It offers a hypothesis, but no popular accepted unifying theory. It is a belief based on a lack of evidence and a loose idea of what might have happened, but nothing testable by the scientific method. This is a major stumbling block. But yet it does not seem enough to cause believers of evolution to waver. That is why it is a belief of faith. It may or may not be true, but the facts aren't there yet to support it and many accept it anyways. That by definition is faith. Because of a preexisting world view partial facts are ordered to ignore gaps and draw a complete picture.

Steve

Azie said...

While you're right that some religious factions don't deserve respect, and some not right away, I do my best to as accepting as possible which requires respecting others first. I feel I do a good job, but there's a point where I put my foot down if the other isn't being respectful back. Just like you said, you'll get taken advantage of and run over if you don't.

During the instances that someone is trying to press their views or opinions as the only correct one, I push back until they see that I'm a "lost cause" (to them of course) and that nothing they say will change my opinion(s). Then I drop the subject. So, yes, I respect others until they choose to disrespect me. I think that's a fair system.

Brett said...

Steve,

Come on. Atheism is DISbelief. There is nothing else to it. Everything else has to do with facts and observation. Saying something so incorrect enough times does not make it true, no matter how many times the right wing seems to think so;) the 'lens' would be evidence. Belief requires faith in something without evidence. Thus the term 'taking it on faith.'

You're right Atheism has nothing to do with abiogenesis (thanks for using the right term!!!!!) That's science. And science does have some good evidence, most of it's circumstantial, but the fossil record does go from simple to complex. IF life appeared when its thought to have evidence would be VERY difficult to find.

I find the fact that book written by goatherders 4000-2000 years ago should be considered evidence when we actually have TONS of fossils and molecular data backing up science. The fact that you continue to keep your eyes shut on the matter doesn't make your point any more plausible. In fact it makes one question how you can continue to keep your head in the sand.

No, no unified theory yet, we actually like to test things before making grandious claims. Of course they have come close in recent years, they are just trying to figure out the first cell walls. I know a new theory thinks RNA might have been first... But I don't keep up on all that stuff.

Science has completely destroyed the creationists ideas, anyone with a bit of reasoning can see that. But we don't know everything... yet. And would you really want to? Life would be so boring without new and exciting discoveries. I'm sure they'll figure it out at one point, just give them time.

Perhaps when the other side provides some actual evidence maybe we'll see things your way, but we've been waiting for years and we've still got nothing. So perhaps it's time to put up or shut up? Show us the evidence that's all we've asked for.....

We're waiting.

Brett

Brett said...

Azie,

I used to think like you, but dealing with creationists, the right wingers, and other religious zealots leaves one a bit jaded.

After seeing all the underhanded lies I think they need to earn everyone's respect, not just mine. Especially if they consider you their enemy. Just watch yourself, they are not always the nice people they pretend to be. Forewarned is forearmed.:)

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

For atheism, and by extension non guided evolution, to be true matter either has to be eternal, which science shows it is not, or it has to have come into existence in a purely non supernatural unguided process, which is completely against all known natural laws. So first for an atheist to have a solid unfaith based belief system they have to explain how matter came into existence or why it exists. Can’t? Okay just accept it on faith. Granted there are some ideas, but they are not testable, so they are more philosophical rather than scientific. Again faith. This is the foundation for a naturalistic world view, and we see from the get go it is based off of a belief, an assumption, a non provable principle and therefore it is outside the boundaries of materialistic science. Am I wrong? Then show me the repeatable scientific test which is also falsifiable for creating matter. Then please repeat the process to create plant life, then also animal life. Of course that is nonsense. It is beyond our scope and worse every experiment or idea like the Miller-Ulrey puddle of goo nonsense or the self replicating RNA hoopla of a decade ago actually contradict the naturalistic world view. They push the possibility of a non supernatural cause further out of reach.

Also, anyone who reads a science book, blog, report, journal, or paper and accepts the information presented without repeating the experiments or talking directly to the scientists involved is believing based on faith that the information is credible. Faith is taking someone else’s word to be true on a subject. The accumulation of knowledge operates on the primera assumption that the source is trustworthy. Sort of like Brett calls believing the writings of goat herders, except unlike those who take materialistic scientists at face value; Christians daily put into action and test the writings of the Bible.

The truth of the matter is everyday we all live by faith. Faith in spouses, faith in governments, faith in friends, faith in co-workers. There is very little we can actually know for certain. Even in my little mid-western town of 8,000 residents people are committing suicide because they lost their jobs. Their faith was placed in the wrong entity and when it disappeared their hope did too. So we need to get past the idea that if you aren’t religious you aren’t living off of faith. The real question is the center of your faith trustworthy. If you’ve tried God and he didn’t work for you, fine; of course Christianity is based on us working for God.

-Steve

Brett said...

Oh Steve,

Matter can not be created or destroyed. It's basic science, but it can be altered. It's the first law of thermodynamics. It's always been there in some form, but there are some interesting articles on wiki about it if you actually want to learn something.

As for testable theories, on the creation of our universe. There are. In fact one says our universe is what is ejaculated out of the singularity of a black hole, and that at the end of every black hole is another universe, a multiverse. It's testable and falsifiable. So far it's passed the test. Evidence has been provided, it's been tested and is falsifiable. No real faith needed, just evidence. You seem to think that if science can't explain something your religion automatically wins by default. IF something can not be explained YET it doesn't mean the answers lie in a book that has been proven false with regards to science and history over and over again. If one thing about that book can be proven wrong then your omnipotent god is wrong and since an omnipotent being can't be wrong then he must not exist.

So by your definition a baby is created by nothing. Which is totally false, when you eat anything you are taking matter from one thing and turning it into matter for another. If matter has always been and changing it is possible, testable and confirmed then I don't see any problem. Your grasping at straws.

Having faith in a person is not the same as faith in a religion. If you can't see that, then this is a waste of both our time. You have past evidence and observations to base your 'faith' on for people and things like the sun coming up. There is nothing but some old myths for religion. EVERYTHING about it is taken on faith.

On the subject of science papers and such... the reason they take so long to come out is because they ARE retested by other people. They tell you about the testing process and how it is repeatable IN THE PAPER, so anyone can retest it. You seen to have a problem understanding that. That is evidence that has been tested and proven true, so that can be considered a fact to base my 'faith' on.

My 'faith' is based on facts and evidence and since faith is the belief in something without proof/evidence, then I guess it's not really faith is it? I don't live by any sort of religion, I live IN a culture. It has rules and obligations that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with matter/ evidence/ what actually exists. And even IF I did have faith in something it doesn't make it a religion. Worshipping a god and following his/her teaching makes it a religion or a cult depending on what word you want to use. Here's a link to the actual definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

I think you miss read my post. I stated everyone lives by faith, not that if materialistic closed universe theorists are wrong that religion is right.



I may be totally wrong, but I am unaware of evidence which proves we live in a multi-verse with a new universe at the end of every black hole. I can find nothing on this on the web, only the usual string theory theoretical physics; which is not a testable falsifiable theory. But I do see on the web that a large number of science sites have dropped falsifiable from their definition of the scientific method.

Steve

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I totally skipped your "matter cannot be created or destroyed" point-the conservation of mass. This is only true in a closed system. With the rise of Quantum physics it is less and less useful as a primera. But if you hold to our universe being a closed system you still have to explain the Big Bang which points to a beginning, a starting point, a non-repeatable event. I had to learn this because as a creationist I got all kinds of flack if I ever said "matter can not be created or destroyed."

Here is the wiki definition:

The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation says that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the central idea behind the first law of thermodynamics.

The law of "matter" conservation (in the sense of conservation of particles) may be considered as an approximate physical law that holds only in the classical sense, before the advent of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Another difficulty with conservation of "matter" is that "matter" is not a well-defined word in science, and when particles which all consider to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not hold, even in closed systems.

Mass is also not generally conserved in open systems, when various forms of energy are allowed into, or out of, the system (see for example, binding energy). However, the law of mass conservation for closed systems, as viewed over time from any single inertial frame, continues to hold in modern physics. The reason for this is that relativistic equations show that even massless particles such as photons still add mass to closed systems, allowing mass (though not matter) to be conserved in all processes where energy does not escape the system.

The historical concept of both matter and mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. In modern physics, only mass conservation for closed systems continues to hold exactly.

Steve

Brett said...

Yes, yes, Steve, I read that. It's actually not really important to this discussion. But if you want to get technical, we ARE in a closed system, but that's a matter of opinion. You're using science to refute science (well done!) You trust this is correct, you put your 'faith' in it because scientists have proven they know a lot about the world. I'm sure they have all sorts of testable theories about the Big Bang and the creation of matter or whatnot, I mentioned one in my last comment about the multiverse (you can get matter from energy as well.)

Scientists have proven they are smarter than the average person in their fields. So why should we put our 'faith' in a old book that has been proven false by the same people you are quoting here? You seem to trust they are right in the case of matter.

We have evidence that can be tested and falsified.. but none of it is as 'true' as a the bible. A book written by people who herded sheep thousands of years ago. I'm supposed to give up all the evidence I see and just trust in a old book that has NO proof? Frankly, I really can't believe this is even an issue.

Best,

Brett

Brett said...

Steve,

I've been thinking... perhaps I should have asked this before. What makes you so sure that science is wrong and your book is correct?

Best,

Brett

Marcus Straven said...

I think both are correct...(not the person who made the original post)...its kind of wierd but I think in time both will validate each other. I after all believe that evolution is perfectly rational and applies to our current undertanding of the world. I am also a catholic, I don't judge others or run around slinging by belief at others, its just that catholic faith works for me. (notice I used the word faith, not anti-papist personally but I get where people can confuse the religion with the institution) I was an anthiest for well over a decade after very naturally losing my faith when I was surrounded by people who really didn't worship anything except their own egos and sense of importance. I later had a religious experience but honestly didn't know what kind of faith I should embrace, it was not the kind of experience that could be called Christian or any kind of particular faith (frankly it scared the crap out of me for a while). I went looking for answers, I visited all kinds of faiths including islam and the jewish faith. I even went to a Shinto shrine (it kind of flew over my head but I ended up making some life long friends). I ended up with catholicism because it just kind of clicked with the kind of person I am. I recognize what is papist policy and what is not so I don't to around being violent over religion. Far from, I have a number of friends who are of a variety of faiths and many more who are aeithists. To me faith in a deity or deities is like walking up a mountain, many paths lead to the same place so what stress it. Its when people walk away end up being dangerous (like extremists who use religion to facilitate their own bigotry). To me being a good person who loves this world is godly even if they don't. Just how I am wired. Yeah, I know I am pretty odd for a catholic and self-proclaimed conservative but like I said it works for me.

As for the original arguement about science vs. religion...they are kind of based on different theological and philosophical principles. Science is based on seeking knowledge and knowing the make up and nature of the universe. Religion is based on faith in the knowledge gained via divine inspiration or communication. It like apples and oranges. They are compatible if you BELIEVE they will be or simple are now but you can't use science with faith...it kind of defeats the purpose.

Marcus Straven

PS Your artwork is awesome and know you got one catholic who does BELIEVE you have the FREE WILL to live your life as you see fit. It was what God want us to do and to live as we desire, people who mess with that by using extremist messages and methods are just wrong.

Brett said...

Hi Marcus,

A lot of people believe the way god works is through evolution. I don't agree really, but they are combining science with religion and it works for them.:)

It's the ignoring the evidence and willfully forcing their belief system on others that make people like me speak out. I just don't see any evidence for an actual religion. BUT if evidence does present itself and can stand up to testing I will change my mind, I might not follow that religion but I will believe it's factual:)

I'm gad you like the artwork, I don't think any religion actual gives you free will but that's an argument for another time;)

Best,

Brett

Brett said...

Steve,

It just so happens a new study is MUCH closer to showing the origin of life on earth, using the RNA theory. It's looking like life happens really easily through chemical reactions. Here's a link:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

Brett,

Why do they need a new study since it has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or is is possible science does not yet know how it happened, in which case you aren't allowed in science to say a theory has been proven true if you can't link the hypothesis with the results through the scientific method.

I know science is wrong because they misuse the facts and overstate the explanatory power of their theories. That is bad science. You don't get to jump to the conclusion until you have the facts to prove it. Evolution could be 100% true, but currently we don't have the hard data to prove it. It bothers me that scientists think the public is too stupid to understand when they are being hood winked. It bothers me that they sweep all the lies, hoaxes, and disprove theories under the rug and then act like we are idiots for calling them on it.

I know the Bible is true because of what God has done in my life. I don't see a conflict between reality, science, and religion. It is only when someone either on the science side or the religion side mis states the facts that I have problems. There is a very interesting article on the Christianity Today website about Augustine's views on creation. I don't agree with it 100% but it does come close to how I feel. I don't know how God created things, or how long it took, but I do know he was involved. Maybe he used evolution, but the data isn't there yet that we can say He did or didn't. We can deduct that normally things in nature do not evolve into a higher under undirected. We see the opposite, so until science shows what the motor powering evolution is I'm not buing it. Describing it as change over time is miles away from explaining the how, it is just restating the obvious. Everything changes over time, that isn't a theory, that isn't even a good crack pot hypothesis.

Steve

Anonymous said...

wow tons of typos on that one.

:(

-S

Brett said...

Steve,

We didn't know HOW it happened just that it did. Now we know how as well.

It's very interesting and very simple. Once again science has predicted and delivered.

Can't chat more I have to ship a puppy out:(

Best,

Brett

Anonymous said...

Marcus you stated "...catholic who does BELIEVE you have the FREE WILL to live your life as you see fit. It was what God want us to do and to live as we desire, people who mess with that by using extremist messages and methods are just wrong."

I hope I'm just misunderstanding you, so please clarify.

If God's plan was for us to live how ever we desired then Jesus would have never have had to die. Obviously his mission was to save people from sin because people tend to desire a self-serving lifestyle. God does give us free will, but we also must exercise that free will in a closed moral system where good and bad are realities and there are consequences for our choices.

Brett you said you don't believe religion allows for free will. In fact taken to its logical conclusion free will is a reality in a religous sense, but an impossibility in a materistic close naturalist world. An atheist must reject the notion of free will because all choices are based off of a cause and effect scientific scenario. You don't really choose anything because you are fooled into believing you make choices when in fact you are a prisoner of your brain and its chemical and electrical reactions. You are merely watching a prescripted predestined long drawn out existance determined entirely by your environment. There is no "you", no individual, just the sum total of your chemical makeup.

-Steve

Anonymous said...

Well this is old ground anyways, we agree to disagree. so good luck with the puppy. Sniff, they grow up so fast and then they are ready to leave home.

s

Jess said...

Steve,

I think you're taking it to the conclusion that you WANT it to be. But I think I get what you are saying and in some things we don't have free will, we need to eat and sleep and stuff like that. BUT you can fast yourself and not sleep so who's to say if that isn't free will? I just thought you'd like the info now that we have it:)

I'll leave it at that I'm really tired, not feeling good today.

Pup got off fine, she's in the air right now headed to Georgia.

Best,

Brett