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.



Sunday, January 30, 2011

Is the Truth different on Sunday?

So, what is truth? I'm beginning to think that that word had different meaning for the religious and science minded. For the religious, the truth is the word of god as described in the bible. For the science minded, I like this one (the post is actually quite good as well):

"A scientific truth is more complex than a colloquial truth, it's requirements being that it is free of contradiction with logic and reality and supported by reason and evidence."

I keep hearing that (insert religion here) is true but time after time I am given no evidence, when I ask for it I get something on morals or the mind of god or lately MONKEYS and that evolution isn't true because some Creationist 'scientists' say so. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the circular reasoning I keep coming across. How can I accept that what these 'scientists' say when what their followers are saying has nothing to do with science and everything to do with faith? When everything they say goes against hundreds of years of research and understanding? I guess it all goes back to the truth, or biblical truth since they aren't the same thing. One sounds lovely... being special, having a soul, being loved. The other fighting tooth and nail to survive, adaption and evolving to find a place in the ever changing environment. One 'supported' by biblical truth the other by science and reason.

I was asked why I do this in a recent post, the person seemed to think that I must still believe in god or I would just sit quietly in the corner and I guess stare at the wall. I do this because someone has to. To sit by and let the religious 'right' take over and force their religion on other is bothersome in mind to say the least, here is one example and here's another. Sitting by and letting these things happen, letting this insanity go unchecked and unopposed to me is worse than being on the opposing side. By saying nothing, you condone them. And by letting them take over you run the risk of turning this country and others into another Uganda, where the church and its followers are now trying to pass laws to execute homosexuals and witches... Because the bible says so, these are biblical truths (you can go here for some of the details). Most Christians would be appalled by this, but by doing and saying nothing you've given them the green light, what's next Atheists and Wiccan? Hindus and Jews? What will it take to get you off your asses and tell people that this kid of thing is wrong? They are accusing children of being witches and killing them!

So, if the biblical truth is actually so very unlike the new Christian views with their Buddy Christ, than how can you keep telling me the bible is true if you don't actually follow it? That simple truth, to me speaks volumes.

And to end this weeks post a very interesting video on How to be a Good Creationist!



There you go M.O.R. I got it done on Sunday;)

Since I have yet to be given any evidence I went looking and I found this! Wow, I really hope his science teachers never see this, but I'm willing to bet he may have been home schooled;) If this is the evidence, I can't every take anything a creationists says seriously.


Fatboy73 said...

That last link was a doozy Brett.Once again people using the bible as "unequivocal proof"that God exixts and Jesus was his son came to earth as a man.I've said it before but I'll say it again,it's like using comic books as "unequivocal proof" that Superman or Spider man actually exist.And you know what...SCREW IT! I'm starting a new faith and calling Spidermanarianism.At least Spiderman get's the whole"with great power comes great responsibility"thing,something the "christian" god could never seem to have the Holy trinity:
Spiderman =The Father
Peter parker=The Son
Uncle Ben =The Holy Ghost
Venom can be Satan
Ya,I think I'm on to something here.

Brett said...


Yeah, that one made my head spin. I love how they dismiss evolution and the Big Bang based on whatever made up science that was. It was crazy!



M.O.R said...

Hey Fatboy,

I already see that your Spider-manarianism is gonna cause conflict--Spider-man is hyphenated.
Waddaya know, A new religion started a conflict and an offshoot in less than 24 hours (Spidermanarianism vs Spider-manarianism).

@Brett Thanks for the shoutout in the post. If you had wanted to be snarky, albeit end up (literally) in the dog house, you could have made some joke about how your Jess didn't read the "Honour and obey" part of the vows when she hogged the computer. But like I said, that would have put you in the doghouse, or the couch if you were lucky. ;)

Fatboy73 said...

Ah but that's just the fictional comic book Spider-Man which was based off of the REAL Spiderman/God
who doesn't have a hyphen in his name because he thinks it's pretentious.And Jesus was technically his own father so religions are full of controversy,nothing new.But that does sound like the I'm my own Grandpa thing doesn't it?
And speaking of that here's a little song I threw together.
It's a rough first draft and it goes to the tune of I'm my own Grandpa.
I'm My Own Damn God

Oh, many centuries ago
back when the world was young.
God created everything, just to have some fun.
The sky and earth, the light and dark
he had a master plan. The moon and stars
and all else too, he then created man.

This made God my father,
because he gave me life.
He then created woman, and said this is your wife.

And because she is a part of you
and from you came her bod.
you are her lord and master,
and kind of like her God.


Oh I'm my own damn God
I'm my own damn God
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh I'm my own damn God.

So later here comes Jesus
He is the son of God
But he’s God too in human form
That makes him his own Dad
And since he is his Father too
that makes him his own God?

His mother was his surrogate
He knocked her up real good
So she could give birth to his self
And he could save the world.


Oh I'm my own damn God
I'm my own damn God
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh I'm my own damn God.

So fast forward to the modern times
and what a state were in.
It's been soo long since our so called God
has done a FUCKING thing.
There's natural disasters,
and disease it is a shame
there's loonies,pysychos and zealots,
all killing in his name.

In a world that's all gone wrong
we wait for God fix it.
Hoping, praying, futily
I might as well say FUCK IT!
This world is ours,not not his
he's gone,if at all he did earth trod
I'm lord and master of myself
that makes me my own God.


Oh I'm my own damn God
I'm my own damn God
It sounds funny I know
but it really is so
Oh I'm my own damn God.

steve said...

Brett you seem to think evidence for God is going to be like looking for footprints, or finding bits of hair, or maybe a discarded water bottle with a little DNA left on it. You also seem to believe learning about God is like learning Algebra, or researching your favorite band on Wikipedia (did you know MEN WITHOUT HATS was from Canada?).

If God is real then he is by definition beyond our limited understanding. He would not fit into a closed materialistic view of the world. Almost all of your basic rejections of faith are based off the priori of “I do not believe in the supernatural.” Then when any claim made to God’s characteristics being beyond the realm of the natural, you say, “that can’t be true, it defies nature; it is supernatural!”

Something beyond our understanding would have to be well…supernatural. Of course that doesn’t mean it is true. This is where the mean spirited atheists usually start talking about unicorns, spaghetti monsters, and insisting that ALL Christians chant, “God made it,” or “God did it.”

So if something is supernatural, logically it would defy nature. It could be neither proved by natural methods nor disproved by natural methods. The “super” in supernatural means it exists above and beyond the constraints of the natural world. It is greater than nature. A natural understanding is inadequate to define or constrain it.

Now even if you don’t believe in the supernatural, you should be able to accurately understand and utilize the concept. I do not believe in a closed natural order, but I can easily understand and construct concepts which would fit within a Natural Materialists worldview.

For the record we all get you do not believe in the supernatural.

We all get that the concept of God does not fit into a natural worldview.

Your worldview contradicts my worldview. My worldview contradicts your worldview.

If you want to actually discuss the matter you have to be able to construct and examine a worldview which you do not believe in, but are capable of accurately examining without altering it to fit your own bias.

If God is real, he ain’t limited to the natural, but we are so…

Rule #1: So if God is supernatural and beyond our ability to understand by natural means, rather than us reaching up to understand Him, we would have to look and see if God ever condescended to reach down to us.

Brett said...


That is the biggest cop out I've every heard! Maybe he's beyond YOUR understanding but not others.

So because you don't actually want to look for evidence for your god you've decided to place it outside of nature and anything natural so no evidence is needed. And you wonder why I question this kind of 'logic'.

We can prove the bible isn't true and thus if those things God is supposed to have done are false then he is false. It's that simple. We have yet to actually find things that defy nature. If you bother to actually study them you can see were they fit. I don't believe in the supernatural because there is nothing to believe in. I wouldn't keep repeating it if people seemed to actually understand it. I'm still waiting for some ghosts, maybe a demon or one of those Giants the bible refers to, you know like them fancy unicorns we have running around... oh wait!

We wouldn't yell 'God did it' if that wasn't your answer for everything;) It amuses us that you try to find some fancy term for it like Irreducible Complexity;) But it all boils down to Design by Creator in the end.



steve said...

Brett maybe reread my post a bit slower. See if you can repeat it without distortion, because your response is the exact opposite of understanding.

I never said not to look for evidence. Reread and look to see what kind of evidence needs to be looked for.

Brett said...

I read it. Several times, the fact that you can't produce evidence and are basically telling me that there will never be evidence because it's outside nature (whatever that is, there is NO evidence for that or the supernatural.) is childish and anything but logical.

You seem to think that this great understanding you have is a virtue and makes whatever you say seem profound but it makes you look foolish. You have nothing to back anything up so it basically comes down to I think this is true so it is. That's not real that's just wishful thinking.

Ia have told you what evidence needs to be looked for, is the Bible accurate if its supposed to be true? It is not. Have the supposed miracles of the Bible happened? They did not.

I have one for ya, pray today for a giant tidal wave to surround the world and stop a la The Abyss. This needs to happen between 1 and 2 pm tomorrow eastern standard time. This would be something that science could not explain and give credibility to your supernatural.

By saying that your God is outside of nature it makes me think he's outside of reality and thus nor real.



steve said...

Okay maybe I wrote it bad.

I said, by definition God's supernatural traits will not be provable by natural means.

So God’s supernatural characteristics can neither be proved nor disproved by natural means. You don’t seem to like this, but it is logic. If this is where the argument ends for you, then admit it and we can save each others’ time. You don’t like the idea of a supernatural God and therefore you don’t want to discuss it. Cool. Rather than saying your way is right and mine is wrong we can simply agree you believe based off of preference.

My belief is science is true until it makes exclusions beyond its logical borders. When scientists or Brett makes a philosophical statement, I part ways.

So I believe everything which is actually provable by science, but I do not have faith to accept what is not proved. Adaption=proved. Speciation as Brett uses the term=not proved-requires faith. Again, this does not mean Brett is wrong, or his concept of Speciation is false; just currently it contradicts empirical study.

So God can’t be proven true by the physical sciences.

In fact if you read the Bible you see God does not feel the need to prove himself. Quite the opposite, He shows he wants a relationship with man based off of faith, love, and trust.

This is where Brett you say you don’t like it. You want a relationship based off of facts.

In a relationship between unequal parties, the party with more power gets to set the terms.

But as God is greater than you, he gets to define the terms of the relationship.

So Brett you say, I don’t like these conditions, my preferences do not line up with how God chooses to relate to men. So this does not disprove God, it just illustrates your disapproval of how He chooses to relate. If honestly at this point you again say, “Because God isn’t the God I want Him to be, and He doesn’t supply proof like I want, but instead he acts like He is God and gets to choose the terms I refuse to investigate evidence for his existence.” Again this will save us both time. God is never going to fit the false image you want Him to. This is where most Atheists get off the boat, Hitchens is probably the best case-it isn’t a lack of evidence, it is just not the sort of evidence he wants and it points to a type of God he doesn’t particularly like.

Now it would be fool hearted to say there is no evidence for God. He would be an incredibly cruel God if he did not offer us some sort of clues as to if he is there or not.

This would be why rather than looking for proof you would have to look for evidence of God on his terms; as I explained, the evidence will be of God condescending to our level; much different than no evidence as you have mischaracterized it.

Fatboy73 said...

I really think that's why a lot of atheists have the opinion Steve that even if god were real and someday decided to "bless" us with irrefutable evidence of his existence,we still wouldn't want anything to do with him.I have neither the time nor the inclination to pussyfoot around,playing a friggen game of clue trying to find out that it was actually Jehovah,in the valley of Megiddo,with the fire from heaven.If there is an almighty creator of everything that is,and he wants to be worshiped by me...he damn well better give me a reason and in my face proof he exists...period!

steve said...

Well Fatboy,

God does offer evidence, but he does not offer irrefutable proof. I’m not God, so I don’t know why He orchestrated things like he has, but observing Human nature gives us some clues.

If God was visible at all times to all people there would be no sense of freedom, and you could never really reject Him. Even if you did want to follow Him, there would be no need for faith, no need for trust, and no ability to freely love. The pendulum has to be able to swing freely in both directions; for there to be great love, there also has to be the capacity for great hatred. For there to be the possibility of great acceptance there has to be the opposite spectrum of great rejection.

Plus this recent discussion with Brett has made me realize also if absolute evidence was available people would misuse religion. Sure people misuse it now, but absolute evidence would destroy any possibility for true worship of God.

You see God wants a relationship. The two key ingredients are trust and time. Over time you learn to trust the other party. A relationship forms as time builds a stronger and stronger relationship. If God was like Algebra, and if information of His character was available as Brett constantly insists he wants it, then relationships with God would become formal indoctrination processes; sort of how Brett’s Catholic background was and what all Evangelical Christians constantly rebel against. God is not head knowledge; Christianity is not a series of beliefs. It really is a relationship which begins with humbly seeking God on His terms. Brett and most atheists constantly take a haughty prove-yourself-to-me approach; the exact opposite of humility and therefore incapable of ever understanding the character of God.

My relationship with God started with the barest minimum of faith, and has grown by interacting with God out of humble submission over decades. Anyone who approaches God and insists God must submit to his standards will always walk away empty handed and scratching their head wondering what all the fuss is about. In this way God ensures relationships will be based off of love and trust rather than some cold collection of data.

steve said...

One last point I just remembered...

By insisting we relate primarily to Him out of trust, God also evens the playing field of who can know Him.

If it was simply fact and knowledge based, the smartest people would have the highest potential for knowing God. They could then potentially misuse this advantage over the more simple (as history has shown happens when people misuse religion or any social belief system.)

God has designed a faith based relationship to be available to the wise and the simple, the young and the old, those who have existed at every stage of human social development.

Trust can equally be experienced by any person with time at their disposal.

Fatboy73 said...

If God was visible at all times to all people there would be no sense of freedom, and you could never really reject Him

Seriously?Of course you could reject him.You know the whole free will thing?And where exactly does heaven fit in?supposedly you can walk around with and talk to him freely there,so freedom doesn't count in heaven?your also completely contradicting your self because here your saying that god doesn't reveal himself full to people so they can have faith and trust in him and later you state that trust must be built up over time.How can you build up trust over time and have faith in something that refuses to be upfront and honest about itself.You would never apply these standards to another person.And before you come out with the "god can't be judged by our standards" crap,that is a total cop out and you know it.If you believe at all in the bible then you believe the fundamental statement that we are created in his image,we are like him,so we should understand his motivations perfectly.

if absolute evidence was available people would misuse religion. Sure people misuse it now, but absolute evidence would destroy any possibility for true worship of God.
Ridiculous! If god were there to say NO DUMB ASS! that's not what I meant at all,then there wouldn't be any misuse or misinterpretation of "his word"And a god who would leave his word to interpretation by a creation that is wholly fallible and can't even listen when told not to eat a damn piece of fruit is either VERY irresponsible or VERY cruel.

Saying god want a relationship is like saying Charles Manson wants a relationship and you just need trust and time,except charlie has a better track record than god and is there to explain what he actually means.
Faith and religion both expect you put your trust in and worship a higher being that is mysterious, and apparently beyond our understanding and doesn't have to adhere to our moral standards.That's like putting your head in a crocodiles mouth and trusting that he won't bite down.Sorry I cannot and will not subject myself to that.
And Christianity IS a series of beliefs just like (sorry Brett) Atheism is.We all have certain things we believe are true that define our particular ism.It dries me nuts when Atheist say it's not a belief system,we say we don't believe in gods or the supernatural and these are the reasons why.That's a belief system.
By insisting we relate primarily to Him out of trust, God also evens the playing field of who can know Him.
Bullshit! That's more smoke and mirrors and you know it.Are you going to know there is such a thing as a rock better if I tell you that it exists,give a detailed description and explain all the characteristics of it,but you can't actually see them just trust me.Or would you understand better if I bashed you in the head with one and said this is a rock.
We'll I'd write more but last time I wrote a lengthy reply and Blogger couldn't post my response.So I'll leave it this for now. :D

Brett said...

Sorry it's fricken cold here (14 right now) so I'm not in a computer kind of mood.

So let's see, still no giant tidal wave...

Fatboy is doing an excellent job pointing out this crazy idea that god who created nature is outside it? To use your own science against you, yes a plan has a creator but that creator ISN'T outside of it's reality, so why does God have to be? Oh that's right, because he isn't real.

Fatboy, sometimes the longer posts will still post even if it tells you it's to long. I've been saving my comments as a text file just in case. Blogger like to eat them;) Charels Manson... fucking awesome!



steve said...


So you are saying if God was visible to you at all times in all his glory, you would still choose not to believe in him because that would prove free will? I have a bit of trouble believing that. Or are you saying you are just as likely to run a red light and speed blatantly in front of a cop as you are when they are not around. You don’t notice yourself slowing down when you see an officer, or if not yourself you don’t notice the other drivers around you do? People tend to act much differently in front of authority figures. If you honestly disagree, take a little time this week and look for examples in the real world. I’m betting people in my town aren’t so different than the ones in yours.

There is no contradiction between saying God desires to build a relation over time and saying he does not force his presence on people.

You say this is God not being upfront. I’ve read your post several times and how in the world can you come to that assumption?

Everyone who gets married does so on the basis of faith. There are expectations and requirements which will only be realized in the course of the marriage. I don’t really think it is possible to say a marriage is at its strongest on the wedding day. Perhaps I’m ascribing too much life experience to you, but are you married? You know why we celebrate things like 25th and 50th wedding anniversaries? Because time has proved what was believed and begun in good faith.

Every relationship is based off of faith and it is proved by exercising trust over time. Again maybe you aren’t really thinking about it, or you’ve just had some pretty terrible relationships.

The Charles Manson thing goes right over my head. Billions have entered into relationship with God, and he never has done anyone any wrong. Manson hasn’t really had a very good run at relationships has he? I don’t have cable tv, so maybe did I miss something?

I think perhaps you don’t understand what faith is, could that be the problem? Faith in God is based off of his past interaction with people, it isn’t blind hope.

You do make one good point. Most believe in Heaven faith will be a thing of the past.

steve said...

Actually maybe I was a little hard on your logic Fatboy. The rock thing is kind of an okay illustration. A relationship with a rock would not fundamentally change over a lifetime, so in a round about way you do make a good illustration. God is said to have a personality and emotions, a rock does not. So what will work for a rock will not for people or other sentient beings like God. It would be foolish to insist otherwise.

Brett your response actually surprises me. Really? I'm thinking the implication of an argument rather than its strength is what appeals most to you.

Fatboy73 said...

So you are saying if God was visible to you at all times in all his glory, you would still choose not to believe in him

Nope,not what I'm saying.Their would be no denying his existence,but I would still have the free will to choose whether or not to worship him.
And explain to me how an almighty being who never gives definitive proof of his existence,leaves his wishes and commands up to interpretation/misuse by someone else and can't figure out from one century to the next whether he's "merciful,loving" god or "wrathful,vengeful"god is being upfront.Mind you I know it's because man creates his own gods and those gods reflect or are molded into the current ideas of what that god should be,but I'm giving you the benefit and pretending he exists and actually has unique personality traits :)
Marriage aah Marriage.I've been with the love of my life for going on 16 years now and she and I quite happily unmarried.That being said Idiots get married on faith for the rest of us we usually spend a good deal of years getting to know each other very well before entering into marriage.So while yes there is a certain amount of faith in every relationship you can hardly equate that with worshiping an absent deity.And I admit Steve I don't know you but based on the strength and reasoning of your arguments I'd say that your statement about Brett applies more to you than him.
The Charles Manson thing goes right over your head because you can't wrap your head around any other version of god than the one you see.(Comic book reference)You know the way every group of beings sees Galactus as a personification of themselves.Your god as described by the bible IS pure evil.It is stated many times times that God created evil and has complete control over it.At least ole Charlie can blame society...bad wiring...chemical imbalance etc.He comes nowhere near the sheer horror and malevolence of what "god" has done through the ages and you know that.
The very definition of evil by some is being able to do something about a bad situation or assert some control over it and then sit by idly and do nothing.
I truly believe that most of the atheists on the planet understand faith a lot better than the ones who purport to live by it,that is why we have wisely chosen to shun it.
Oh and "god" again as described by "his word" is the Alpha and Omega unchanging and unmoving,so I think a rock would be the perfect way to describe god.Again the only reason god changes is because the ones who worship him change him to their tastes as they see fit.

M.O.R said...

No offense to anyone here, but I get the feeling that Steve is of the philosophical mind, similar to myself, while Brett, and others are more physical evidence based.
What I mean is, certain Philosophical questions cannot be answered. IS this reality, or are our dreams reality? Dunno, cannot answer it, even the "I think therefore I am" element of philosophy has holes in it in regards to identifying which is the 'real', physical environment. How do we know we are not all some dream, figments of someone's imagination when they sleep? We don't nor can we. Philosophy is a trick deal. Same question can go for the theory(regular use, not science) of the existence of God/ a deity/ the supernatural.

Anyway, just trying to say where I believe each individaul is coming from.

Btw, Brett, thanks for the honourable mention. ;)
(I guess I kinda know what a comic book editor feels like when they give orders.)

Brett said...


But you see the philosophical mind wonder were we came from and the science mind tries to answer it with evidence, while the religious mind just goes with what it's been told.

Seeing as how dreams have no rules or laws, anything goes and we can actually test them and the brain while sleeping. It's a safe bet this is reality. As for someone elses dream? Then we'd blink out of existence when they were not focusing on us. I think philosophy gets a bit too much credit for actually providing answers myself. It's real if we can test it and repeat those tests with the same conclusions. That's what science does, it tests reality.

Looks like today will be a far nicer day than Wednesday. We're already at almost 50 and it's 9 in the AM:)

M.O.R said...

Ah yes, but then, what is reality? What does it mean to be human? If someone is missing certain parts of themselves, or has prosthetic replacements instead, are they still human?

The old question about a tree in the forest has the scientific answer, as well as the philosophical answer. If nothing with an ear is there to interpret the waves of energy created by the tree falling as sound, then scientifically the sound does not exist. If there is something there with an ear and it's many parts, then yes, there is a sound. Yet philosophically, how do we know the tree will make energy to be interpreted as sound? What if, in a one in a billionth happening, there is no energy created? A freak incident that nobody is there to witness? That is a question philosophy asks.

(I have to state at this point I am not trying to be a douche or impossibly difficult, far from it, just saying where philosophy asks questions which may, on some occassions, never be answered.)

As far as saying this world is a safe bet as the real one, well, yes, that is possible, but then what rules are we using to test it? The rules of this world. Yet, as you mention, dreams have different rules, and if we tested that world with those rules, would we get a similar answer?

(Again, this is philosophy, and I am not trying to be a douche.)

The toughest people, in terms of philosophy, are the modernists and post-modernists. According to them, the Big Bang Theory, Evolution and Creationism, are all myths. It is so freaking annoying, but that is the way they work.

As far as the whole figment of someone elses dream...we have a concept of time, yet the whole beginning of the universe, from the single atom, right through the dinosaurs until our present may have existed within one dream of one individual. When they wake up, is when we cease to exist, ala the end of the universe.

(Again, please read my other reiterations above.)

Anyway, glad you are getting warm temperatures. Over here, in Ireland, we are getting pouring rain. Been like this for the last 3 days, altho the prevous two had gale force winds.

Fatboy73 said...

Humans can only define their world ,their reality,by the five senses which we have developed,we simply cannot know more than that.So it really doesn't matter if there is another reality or another existence or if this world is the "real one"
This is the world we can comprehend and therefore the only one that matters to us,until such time as we develop a higher sense or another reality becomes tangible to us of course.
There could be an invisible drunken leprechaun,singing Lorna Doone and galloping in circles around you on the back of a jackaloupe.But until you can hear him singing,he pinches you on the ass or you can see or smell them it doesn't matter one bit too you.
Philosophers can sit around and ponder inane hypotheses all day long and while they do make for interesting conversation and are the basis for a lot of spectacular fiction,they are practically useless and have no relevance on this reality.
And your not being a douche,your simply stating your views. :D

heaven is real said...

ephesians2:2 You followed the ways of this world and obeyed the devil. He rules the world, and his spirit has power over everyone who doesn't obey GOD. Once we were also ruled by the selfish desires of our bodies and minds . We had made GOD angry , and we were going to be punished like everyone else . But GOD was merciful! We were dead because of our sins, but GOD loved us so much that he made us alive with Christ , and GOD's wonderful kindness is what save's you . GOD raised us from death to life with Christ Jesus, and he has given us a place beside Christ in heaven. GOD did this so that in the future world he could show how truly good and kind he is to us because of what Christ Jesus has done. You were saved by faith in GOD, who treats us much better than we deserve. This is GOD's gift to you, and not anything you have done on your own. It isn't something you have earned, so there is nothing you brag about . GOD planned for us to do good things and to live as he has always wanted us to live. That's why he sent Christ to make us what we are. That's pretty well explained why generation to generation screws it up I can only say this Genesis 6:5 then the lord saw the wickedness of man was great on earth, and every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually . {charles manson} There is no excuse for anyone who does evil like the guy in Michigan who blew up the mosque and said science is his god , or the atheist in the Arizona shooting who took those lives . Atheist understand faith better than most people as they follow Al gore on his global warming all those scientist who are on the gore train , it's sad that everytime I turn around scientist are proved to be lying to support there own agenda . I dont know if you heard but al gore and his scientist's want you to cut back on electricity while he burns up 3 time's or 10 time's the average home ! You said your not playing GOD's games and actually GOD is not playing your game I mean come on If GOD revealed himself to me I still wouldn't want anything to do with him ! Or how about I command GOD to make a tidal wave tomorrow at 2 pm Then I will believe or my scientist will come up with a theory / explanation ! The thing is that you have no way of understanding GOD , because the only way you can is to bring him down to your level , and that will always be your mistake . In order for GOD to be everything he is it would be more than anyone's mind can fathom !

zelsai19 said...

Steve, I honestly have no idea, as someone who is (albeit currently inactive) religious, why someone would start an argument on a blog that is so solid-steel atheist. It's like arguing just for the sake of arguing, which is most likely why christians and catholics have such a bad rap for being wrong: because we're too damn defensive, and it's never bloody graceful.

Its called acceptance, dude. Let the man believe what he wants, no one is making you read this. If you're going to be offended ( i wasnt) then just move on.


Man I'm a huge fan of yours, and I've been meaning to say hey forever. In a time where I was beginning to lose interest in in illustration, I stumbled upon the first comic book I've ever read: Your work from Anita Blake. Ever since your work has been a great reference for me, and amazing inspiration.

I want to say thanks, and I'll continue to watch this blog for more inspiration, as every piece of art you post is like gold to me. I can't tell you how much I look forward to them!

Fatboy73 said...

heaven is real,

Uhmmm 1.quoting the bible is going to get you no where.It's the same thing as if I tried to back up my points by quoting the satanic bible or the Qur'an to you.
That's all I've got because the rest of what you said made zero sense. :D

heaven is real said...

Yeah I apologize!!! I was looking at 1. the part where you said people cant figure out from 1 century to the next if GOD is mean or loving . That was pretty much all of ephesians 2:2 THen #2. was You said GOD was pure evil so I responded with genesis that GOD said the evil was in man's heart . The charles manson thing was a point that he's nuts just like the arizona shooter or any other nut . I'm not trying to sound rude or offensive this is just different writing stuff down I'm use to talking in person discussions . I'm not frustrated with you , but I'm frustrated with Al Gore they said he had like 400 scientist backing him up then they exposed his video was a lie , yet they gave him a nobel peace prize or something like that. Then I did word it wrong on how you said your not playing GOD's game I was just saying GOD doesn't play our game's . And I sound rude with the command GOD to do stuff to me it doesn't sound offensive when I write it , Like I said I think it's just easier for me to talk than write , because I'm not making thing's very clear so once again I apologize for my rudeness .

Brett said...


As Fatboy said, quoting the bible isn't going to get you anywhere with non believers. If we don't believe it, it means nothing to us when you try to use it as some sort of final word. It's like me using Superman to prove aliens exist.

PLEASE don't tell me you are a climate change denialist!?! The Climate is changing, whether you or Al Gore think so is irrelevant. And after some of your other comments be prepared to back up any strange claims with actual evidence. We do need to cut back on using electricity, burning coal or fuel causes emissions that mess up our air. That you don't care about this is troubling but you might be thinking the rapture will save you but until then you still need to breath, so why poison the air of you don't have to? Or at the very least limit the poison.

It IS funny that you didn't mention all those Christian shootings, abortion doctor killing, gay killings, just a few supposed Atheists (I have not heard the guy in Arizona was even talking! Good on you for being able to divine that!) If you bring up Hitler I will publically flog you;)

But it's really funny that the cars you drive, the medicine you take, the technology you work and play with is all based on science, yet when that science, which you know works, disagrees with you, it's suddenly wrong, and not just wrong, evil.... I can't understand how you can think like that.


I've been arguing with Steve on this for years (like 10 or 11 now.) I think he has some small hope that he might convince me I'm wrong, either that or he thinks I'm so wrong that he has to speak up.

Glad you like the work:) I'm happy to have been able to keep you reading comics. Once I get a bit more free time I'll try to do up some new sketches. These last 2 months have been hectic as hell so I haven't had a lot of time to do anything else but work.



M.O.R said...

@ Fatboy

Some are my views, most are actual phiosophical questions. And I feel many are, sadly, terribly relevant.

The whole "what does it mean to be human" question is something that may create a certain sense of, I dunno if this is too strong a word but I gotta use something, segregation, among society. I mean, if someone has a cochlea implant, or an artificial heart, does that make them less than human? Are they seen as sub-human? Again, I feel, we need to be aware of these things just so we can confront them and have answers for them further down the line. Be prepared, that sortta thing.
I feel philosophy is important, and far from inane. Is it right that a sports star earns more than a doctor? A movie star earns more than a good politician? That creativity is relegated to the sideline while subjects like Maths (I personally detest it)are considered academically important? I mean, we are at an impasse, in terms of creativity. Art/ Music/ Film rely on it entirely, and when it comes to subjects getting cut in schools and colleges, it nearly always seems to be art and music subjects that cut.

steve said...

Fatboy, your argument falls apart on substance and structure. You are basically saying since God is evil (like a crocodile or Charlie Manson) he is unworthy of being trusted.

Of course your argument actually works more strongly against you, you believe Charlie Manson is a product of nature and his beliefs and actions are no more moral than your own. Charlie is trying to survive by being the fittest. Is he insane? Well insanity seems to help a being survive and reproduce so who knows, maybe it is a beneficial evolutionary trait.

But seriously, you have to debate the statements I made, not say God is bad so he can't be trusted. That is disagreeing and opinion.

I was taken back that Brett did not himself catch this and insist on keeping the playing field even without mixing opinion in the mix.

I argue with Brett because we are friends and have a lot of similar tastes and views, except on this topic. Plus Brett constantly brings God into the argument, not me. He is frequently misinformed or misapplies information about God. I think he deserves to know the truth, even if he does not accept it.

Brett said...

Oh Steve, Twice in one day? How can you not see the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!

You chastise Fatboy, yet you spew it left and right!!! Your 'truth' is only your opinion. Can you not see that? Everything you argue is YOUR OPINION!!!! Science deals in facts religion does not. This is why science and religion aren't compatible. One deals in logic and reason, the other opinions and wants. It's it your opinion that I am misinformed, but I'm just not getting the same BS out of it that you are. That doesn't mean I'm wrong since the bible can be interpreted in many ways. but of course yours is the true religion, so because you know the truth that is how it MUST be, you couldn't ever be wrong because you are right!! That's the most excellent logic evah!

As for Manson, he would have been killed in the wild long ago. There is nothing natural about him. Once you bring in culture things get very, very murky. Which is why I don't bother with it. Plus there is always mental illness.

And your god IS EVIL. You seem to think the things he did are good and holy or that BS that we can't understand his mind crap. But he murdered almost everything on the planet. How can you think he's good if he can't even follow his own rules? Your bible explains nothing, it is a useless book best forgotten unless you want to make some fun movies.



steve said...



the specific philosophical definition I offered of trust and faith were not opinions on if God is or is not trustworthy, but how the relationship model works.

Opinion would have been "I think God is really good so you should trust Him."

Then the argument, "I think God is really evil, so don't trust him would have been more fitting."

I was looking for a counter argument to the nature of faith and trust, not God's character.

And yes lots of times I do state my opinion. So I can see the confusion.

Pai said...

As someone who was raised as a Young Earth Creationist (and taught it in private school even), but whose love of science and biology finally made me have to accept that reality just does NOT support that interpretation of the Genesis creation, I have to say that the claim that believing in an old earth/natural selection means that the entire message and purpose of the Bible (to explain God's relationship to mankind, and mankind's spiritual state) is a complete fallacy. There are actually many Christians who manage to reconcile science/reality and spirituality just fine -- the fundamentalists may claim it's impossible, but then, their view of most things is incredibly narrow and inflexible to begin with.

I know most people who hold an opinion about young earth being the only option lest the entirety of scripture be made (somehow) irrelevant if a worldwide flood and 6 day magical creation are literal will never believe otherwise, but in my own development of view, I found two books and one film to be the most helpful in reconciling reality to Genesis:

'The Biblical Case for an Old Earth', 'The Genesis Debate', and the science documentary 'What Darwin Never Knew' (which was actually my tipping point into fully accepting the beauty and miracle of evolutionary processes).

I cannot believe that the entire physical world around us is a carefully built lie to deceive people, which is the only conclusion that can be reached if you think that the fossil record, physics, astronomy, geology and biological data are all illusions perpetrated by some shady conspiracy of the entire scientific world against Christianity, (or believe that God made the universe appear old when it's really not just to 'test people', which is appalling -- go tell people God is an elaborate deceiver that they must worship because 'he says so' -- and then wonder why someone would recoil from such a deity)!

I also feel sorry for Christians who have been raised with the belief that they can somehow debate people into a spiritual conversion -- which is frankly impossible. The fact that the debate over the existence of God has existed since the beginning of time and has yet to be resolved should give such people a clue as to the futility of the attempt. You cannot 'logic' people into having a religious experience.

M.O.R said...

Well said, Pai. Very well said. Then when one asks 'Who is this shady organisation?' who wants to bet that our hebrew cousins get the blame? Yes, most people, sorry, most creationists, will say the devil, but you'll always get the minority extremist who hates the jewish community and blames them for every niggling thing, such as war, famine, and Justin Bieber. We all know that Justin Bieber is beyond both God and science in terms of explaining his popularity, so just don't think about it. It will drive you insane. I'm talking Dogs playing poker insane. ;)

Anyway, what Brett and Jess, in my opinion, believe needs addressing is the fact that Atheists and agnostics, are, generally, seen as second class citizens. Even then US president, George Bush snr, stated, matter of factly, that they are seen as such. When a government figure declares a people of a different belief system to be second class citizens, that is some seriously messed up shizzle.

The problem I have, as well, which is partly the media's fault, partly certain elected officals fault, as well as the fault of the individual, is the belief that one must either believe in science, or believe in God, black or white, no inbetweens. Now, to me, that is just horrific to think of something like that. I understand the AAS are trying to change people's opinions of this.

Fatboy73 said...

is the belief that one must either believe in science, or believe in God, black or white, no inbetweens.

Hey I'll come right out and say that the whole ancient alien thing is very intriguing to me,and they have some interesting theories.I understand that "evidence" has been changed,filtered,or left out completely to back up certain claims and a lot of it is crackpot,but all of that aside the basic idea of it sounds a lot more plausible to me than a supernatural creator.
And now that I've probably destroyed any chance of anyone ever taking me seriously after that,I bid you all adieu :D

M.O.R said...

Why Fatboy, it's the internet, nobody takes anyone seriously, such is the way of the world.

(Although worryingly, you many have backed up Scientology :0 )

Btw, I am not saying that everyone has to believe in God, I am totally not, but what is irritating to me, and what I see happening in the world, is the belief that one must 'choose a side' rather than being allowed to believe in both, if they so wish.
I mean, think of it this way.

What if some ice cream parlour said you can either have strawberry or chocolate icecream, but not both? They would very quickly lose business from those who wanted a scoop of both. Same goes for enjoying certain films. You can have Hitchcock or Ford, Spielberg or Jackson, Science Fiction or Fantasy, but no inbetween. Well, we would decry such behaviour.
Heck, imagine if someone said you can look at Kevin Nowlan's blog, or Brett Booth's, but not both.
How ticked would all of us be then?

Yet why must people consider Science the work of evil? I admit I hated science in school, not because it disproved any beliefs, just because of the way it was taught to me. Nowadays, I try to keep up on science, mainly the medical field, because I want to see diseases such as AIDS or cancer eradicated forever. I enjoy learning about science on my own, rather than someone having to force it down my throat.

Adam said...

Brett: As someone who accepts that there is not any empirical evidence of God and yet chooses to believe anyway and someone who is very big into cosmology, physics etc... let me explain what some others have said in scientific terms. First of all, thanks to COBE the Big Bang theory is indeed undeniable. There WAS a big bang that started off the universe. But lets rewind the universal clock to 0. Science is limited to some extent because science is limited to what is observable and testable under universal laws. By it's own definition scientific observation is not capable of proving the catalyst of the big bang because asking what happened BEFORE the beginning of time is akin to asking a scientist to draw you a four sided triangle. Lets say you take the singularity approach to the Big Bang. So the quantum singularity is there and it is all our universe is. Anything that exists outside of the singularity that is to become our universe would actually exist at all points of time and space within our universe simultaniously. Taking the oscillating brane approach to the big bang which is gaining in popularity due to the newly discovered dark flow would suggest that not only are there things that could exist outside of our universe but things that MUST exist (to be causing the dark flow) and that they can interact with our universe as a whole, but that things within the universe itself cannot interact with it. Science is NOT capable of describing these phenomena because we are not capable of observing their causes (only their effects in the case of dark flow). All of this is not to affirmatively state that this is where "God" is. Only that science DOES have it's limitations and there ARE things that are potentially beyond our ability to understand in any significant way.

Adam said...

And for the record I've seen that girl's Youtube channel before and many of her videos. Her point #5 is probably the most unscientific BS I've ever heard. Universal superlatives and other universes and phenomena that exist outside of our universe are very real propositions within cosmology. So her casual dismissal of them paints her in the same stroke as teh creationists she's bashing.

Brett said...


Faulty logic. If we can see that there are things we can't yet explain, then there is SCIENTIFIC evidence for those things, we just can't explain them... yet. There is no evidence to support any religion other than books and myths, nothing scientific.

Yes we might never know how things started, unless we figure out time travel some things just won't be possible, that doesn't mean we can't get close. Which we've have in such a short time, and surprise, God's magic input seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

There are indeed people studying things BEFORE big bang. Things such as the multi-universe theory. To say that they can't and don't have any ideas just shows that you aren't keeping up with the science. Hawkings showed how the big bang started in the 60's, he'd need to have thought about the universe before the event.