“Expelled” Redux
September 29th, 2008 by HankDuped from Ethics Gradient.
They’ve started advertising the DVD version of that infernal, mendacious, highly offensive, wilfully ignorant and misleading waste of megabytes known as Expelled. Bay of Fundie has scratched the surface of their advertising and revealed some new information.
Now, given that this is the DVD release of Expelled, it makes me wonder what kind of special features they’ll include. Of course no one can know for sure, but I have something of a wish list:
- a complete timeline of all the steps taken & communication entered into to secure the participation of such people as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, including a full explanation for the stark deviation from the premise of the original film: it was originally presented to Myers & Dawkins as a documentary named “Crossroads”, detailing the intersection of religion & science, which it clearly did not turn out to be, either by name or nature
- full, uncut, unedited interviews with the above-named
- a full explanation from the film’s producers of PZ Myer’s own expulsion from a screening of Expelled by security staff before he’d entered the theatre, despite the fact that he’d registered to attend under his own name and hadn’t attempted any kind of subterfuge, as was alleged early on by the producers (as well as an explanation of how Richard Dawkins, arguably more recognisable than PZ Myers, was allowed to enter unmolested)
- behind-the-scenes segments showing such things as exactly who comprised the audience in Ben Stein’s opening, paranoid address to college “students”and a clear explanation of Adolf Hitler’s alleged use Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify his horrific experiments
- a demonstration that the producers of this film - and Ben Stein himself - actually understand what the theory of evolution says and, importantly, what it doesn’t say: Stein is on record stating that evolution can’t explain certain astronomical phenomena & processes, apparently ignorant of the fact that evolution only applies to terrestrial biological diversity
- an explanation of how “micro-evolution” differs from “macro-evolution”, followed by an explanation of how a lit match can’t start a bushfire
- an actual clear-cut, definitive definition of the theory of Intelligent Design, the predictions made by this theory and why this theory requires equal time in science classes (see below)
- results of any actual research into & testing of ID’s predictions, including such information as the identity or even intent of the “designer” and the reason for the many, glaring inefficiencies, inconsistencies and illogicalities in biological “designs” from all branches of life. This should be presented by one or a combination of (but not limited to) the following high-profile design proponents: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Phillip Johnston & we mustn’t (nor will we ever) forget Ben Stein.
- a full explanation of the “controversy” that Stein & co wish to be taught to children, as it appears that the only controversy regarding the veracity of evolutionary theory is the one Stein & his partners in this endeavour have manufactured
- actual, scientific rebuttals of (or even credible challenges to) any aspect or aspects of the theory of evolution - without resorting to paranoid conspiracy theories or sweeping, unsupportable statements about “Big Science”
- an explanation of Stein’s infamous remark from an interview on a Christian TV programme: “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.”
- an explanation of how Intelligent Design is not based on (or simply is) Biblical creationism & an explanation of the actions of the obviously religiously motivated members of the Dover, PA school board (and their supporters from the Discovery Institute, authors of the infamous and clearly religiously-based “Wedge Document”) which led to the famous trial of 2004
- a justification for singling out Darwinian evolution for special attention, while other fields such as Newtonian physics and Copernican astronomy each contradict Scripture in various ways but are (for the most part) left unmolested and uncontested by religionists
- one good reason why teaching children their parents’ religion shouldn’t just stay in Scripture classes, Sunday schools, churches and the family home and one good reason why it should be taught as fact alongside evidence-based science when, as is repeated often, religion & belief is a matter of faith, which by definition means “accepting a proposition without evidence”
…
Of course, it’s all wishful thinking on my part. But no more so than Stein & Co’s insistence that “Big Science” persecutes & expels religious professors for dissenting views, that ”Darwinism” is a one-way street to concentration camps or, indeed, the insistence of many ID supporters that Big Religion played no part in attempting to usher Bible stories into science classes through the back door in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
I eagerly await my hopes to be dashed.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:49 am
You are just upset because your “savior” Dawkins was taken to town by Ben Stein. I know that it hurts to see your guy humiliated.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:37 am
"Taken to town" must mean "quote mined" to Erik B. Expelled was almost as fair as the works of Michael Moore. That’s a pox on both their houses.
Dawkins is no savior to me. He makes some good points, but his hard line approach alienates many potential allies. But maybe the rationalists need a few extremists, to balance the phalanx of religious extremists on the other side.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Who said Richard was the equivalent of god for atheists? He’s not my god, I don’t worship him. He’s a biologist who has effectively written all the different ways that science has eliminated god from the equation.
But he’s still a human, humans are fallible. Does that mean that his arguments are invalid? No, it just means that he’s exceptional at what he does, despite his faults.
Expelled basically pulled a bait and switch, then it proceeded to slander everyone who disagreed. That’s a dirty tactic, and is regarded with contempt in civilized society. I think Bill Mahers ‘Religiolous’ will have a more unbiased view, although I’m incredulous to that.
Then again, this is a country that nearly deifies those who bomb abortion clinics, and demonizes anything or anyone who says different.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Ah, Mr Brewer, there you are. I was wondering when you’d turn up. A DI comment thread just isn’t the same without you. We here at DI would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation for all the traffic you create here. Some of us have jobs that get rather dull at times and this is a much-needed diversion.
Fact: “Expelled” and everyone involved in the movie knowingly LIED before the film in order to secure the participation of Dawkins & Myers (& others). First they lied about the title & subject matter of the movie, then they lied in the movie about the alleged “expulsions” of the “dissenting” scientists and, after its release, they lied straight away when explaining PZ Myer’s expulsion from the screening.
Richard Dawkins wasn’t humiliated - but he was somewhat annoyed by the obvious quote-mining, selectve editing & gross misrepresentation of his views both in the movie and afterwards. While not being humiliated, he probably was acutely embarrassed that he’d been so thoroughly conned by the producers of the flim.
However, the only people who should really be humiliated or embarrassed are that lackwit Stein & the producers of this empty propaganda. Accuracy aside, it was simply a terrible flim: it bombed in theatres, received half-star reviews from all corners of the entertainment (& scientific & general) press (and was basically ignored everywhere but in the US; most of the world hasn’t even heard its allegedly vital and world-changing message) and was only ever going to gain sales from the already-converted. Far from changing anyone’s minds and bringing in new converts, this has (1) simply reinforced Creationist ignorance and (2) strengthened the resolve of those who fight the standard Creationist tactics of misrepresentation, quote-mining, wilful, persistent, baffling ignorance of established scientific fact, infiltration of public schools under false pretences and in contravention of the US Constitution (just watch PBS/Nova’s “Dover” documentary or read Lauri Lebo’s “The Devil In Dover”) and their constant, flat-out “bearing of false witness”.
[cue: assertion from a Creationist that because I agree with the Bible about lying being wrong, I believe in the Bible]
Fact: Stein & co. CHOSE to remain ignorant about what the theory of evolution says (and, importantly, what it doesn’t say) and they CHOSE to present two hours of easily-debunked fallacies on screen - knowing full-well that their target audience of Creationists would lap it up without a second thought. They wilfully presented information that is false, not the least of which was the non-existent link between Darwin’s theory of evolution and the Nazis. Quick version: Nazi breeding experiments were NOT based on the theory of natural selection, they were purely artificial selection in exactly the same way that farmers & animal breeders cross-breed for specific traits.
What’s more, Stein & co didn’t even explain what exactly their theory of Intelligent Design IS, what it predicts or how to investigate it: the entire movie is merely a transparent & shameful hit-piece on Darwin & evolution.
Quick science lesson: you simply cannot say “I believe in Theory A but not Theory B; therefore Theory B is false”. You have to show not only WHY Theory B is false; more importantly, you have to show evidence FOR Theory A. “Expelled” does neither; it asserts evolution is wrong (without evidence) and barely even touches on the subject of Intelligent Design - the viewer’s left wondering what the hell ID says about anything. However, I believe that’s deliberate: this film aims to preach to the converted and not to present any compelling evidence either for ID or against evolution.
Fact: I no more worship Richard Dawkins than I worship Dave Gilmour from Pink Floyd or Isaac Asimov, no matter how much I enjoy their work.
Worship of anything or anyone is for those who cannot trust the power of their own minds or the goodness of their own hearts. It is a non-argument to project your personal needs for a saviour and someone to worship on to those who don’t share the same needs.
The obvious fact that you require something to worship and someone to save you does not automatically mean that your requirement is shared by anyone else.
[cue scripture lesson & pity for depraved atheists]
http://www.EXPELLEDEXPOSED.com
September 30th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Hank
How do you define worship? Is it the way that you want to define it? Here is the Biblical definition of worship and how it is seen in our world today.
Worship comes from the Hebrew words “shachah” and “abad”. Here is the meaning; to bow down before a superior to give homage, to labor or work for (ie serve someone).
Worship is that which you bow down before, that which you serve. All people serve something. Some serve money (that is what they think about, that is what drives them, that is where they spend most of their time and energy, etc.). Others serve power, material possessions, another person, themselves, science (you for example) etc. I chose to worship God (spend my time getting to know Him and doing what He says). So you see, all people serve/worship something. The question is not if I worship but what/whom do I worship.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Mr Brewer…
*sigh*
I define “worship” the same as most other people - the same as you just have in your own words (so I find it very curious that you’re accusing me of re-defining it when we basically agree on its meaning and are using it in the same freaking context): “bow down to; be subservient towards”. It also carries these meanings: “love uncritically”, “show devotion to a deity”, “venerate as a GOD”.
I maintain that I do not worship or venerate (or feel the need to do same to) ANYTHING or ANYONE. I used to worship and I know what it entails so do me the honour of not presuming to know my mind.
[cue assertion that I wasn't "worshipping properly"]
I categorically do not worship (venerate as a deity or love uncritically or, ugh, bloody well bow down to) science, money, reason, logic, music, humanitarianism, beagles, Richard Dawkins, Pink Floyd or anything (or anyone) else that I love or that adds to the colour or quality of my life. It is possible to love and appreciate and enjoy a thing or person without elevating it or them to a point of uncritical veneration and subservience.
Now, I think you & I both know the context of the word “worship” in this conversation. To intentionally dilute or deflect its meaning in order to encompass everyone who does anything for any reason is a dishonourable & dishonest tactic. It’s also a transparent ploy to shift the conversation off-topic; to move the damn goalposts so you can have yourself a win - however, I’m quite happy to take the ball and run with it, whichever direction you now expect me to kick.
The question here is indeed whether a person worships or not - to simply make a sweeping generalisation that “everyone worships something” is false, without evidence and incorrect. Only after the question “do you worship” is answered “yes” can we get down to the specifics of the object or entity being worshipped. Your attempt to ascribe to everyone the answer “yes” in advance is again moving the goalposts in your own favour. Again, I’m happy to take the ball.
The fact is this: not everyone is like you and not everyone thinks like you do, regardless of whether you like it or whether you agree with it. Denying reality doesn’t disprove it. Denying the Emperor’s nudity does not clothe the fat naked bastard.
[cue assertion that nonreligious people, in fact, do exactly the same things as religious people; they just do it differently which of course means everyone's actually religious even if they don't know it (but that really just means they won't admit it)]
September 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Hank
So, whatever you devote the most of your time, energy, effort, etc. to doing, that is what you worship. You worship something whether you want to admit it or not. You can deny it day and night but fact is fact. You can blame me for shifting the focus but that is what you are doing. I explained what the word worship means in the Biblical context and how it is seen in day to day life. Again, facts are facts yet you can choose to deny them if you want. That is your choice.
I have never called anyone to think or be like me. I defend the Word of God. I do want people to know the Word of God (study It for themselves leaving out all of their biases) and will give anyone who wants advice on how to study. I will point out the lies that people bring about the Word of God (as I have done on this site).
The Bible says (Jesus Himself) that most will not accept the Word of God and that is their choice. Jesus did not chase after the rich young ruler. He shared the Truth and the man did not like it so he walked away. I expect many more to reject the Truth of the Word of God than accept It. But I continue on for the ones who will accept.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:02 am
*SIGH* What unbelievable mendacity. What utter nerve. What complete bald-faced, dishonest bone-headedness.
YOU both shifted the focus of this thread to worship and then YOU redefined worship to basically mean “whatever people spend their time on or whatever they like doing”. And then you had the gall to accuse me of the exact things you just did.
To clarify the order of events: (1) my post was about the movie Expelled; (2) your first comment was an direct response to my post; (3) my first comment was a direct response to that - then (4) in your second comment YOU injected that tangent about worship (including its Hebrew etymology), which I replied to, including standard English dictionary definitions of “worship” & indicating my non-worshipping status. Now, breathtakingly, you accuse ME of not only changing the freakin subject but also redefining “worship”!
So, you and your team think that “whatever you devote the most of your time, energy, effort, etc. to doing, that is what you worship.” That’s a redefinition if ever there was one.
I never said you “called people” to be or think like you either. What I observed from reading your comment is that you think everyone’s ALREADY like you and ALREADY thinks like you, with your incorrect assumption everyone worships something. Of course, if you were able to comprehend what I write instead of just skimming it and picking out the bits you can get a grip on, you would’ve realised that.
By the way, what the hell is evangelism if it’s not an attempt to bring people around to your way of thinking?
The lack of comprehension, the dishonesty, the hypocrisy, the pure nerve to tar me with your own brush … it’s pathetic. Pitiful. Painful! But pretty entertaining, if I’m honest. And it’s doing wonders for my typing speed!
Now, if we could get back to Expelled (remember the topic?) that would be great.
[cue more mendacious rambling, pot/kettle analogy-inducing lackwittedness & hypocrisy, all interspersed with yawnful scripture-worship and coma-inducing evangelism, goddam I'm getting sick of this bullshit]
October 1st, 2008 at 1:38 am
I just read back and it seems I did indeed mention worship in my first response!
However, the few small paragraphs that did mention it made up perhaps one sixth of the entire comment and were on-topic, directly rebutting Mr Brewer’s baseless claim of Dawkins’ saviourhood amongst the non-religious. To concentrate on that small part of my comment & ignore everything else, while devoting the entire rest of his next comment to worship tells me that Mr Brewer had absolutely nothing to say in response to my main points, which comprised the vast majority of the body of the comment.
Reeks like Standard Creationist Operating Procedure: skim-read, isolate what you can argue against, proceed with all guns blazing against the horrid atheist and all his demands for such worthless, earthly trinkets as facts, evidence, honesty & honour.
[cue giant shovel of bollocks]
October 1st, 2008 at 5:36 am
“You can deny it day and night but fact is fact.”
(Sigh) It’s like debating with a Furby.
There’s an old saying; I think it comes from Usenet:
“Do not feed the trolls.”
I finally figured it out for myself in another thread, and I recommend it highly.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:08 am
• Hank
You are the one who brought up worship in a derogatory comment so I just corrected your mistake. I explained where you were wrong (you are a worshipper as all people are). Claiming ignorance to what worship (that is what you are doing) does not change the fact. I wish you guys could understand that fact for just one minute in your lives.
You hate the fact that I point out where you are wrong (pride does that to people). I defined how the word worship came about in its original context. People are basically the same everywhere you go (I know because I have been there and met them). They think about the meaning of life, why we are here, and where we go when we die. There is a way that explains all of those answers (God does in His Word). People either listen to God’s explanation or they make up their own (ie man-made religions, or worldviews such as evolution). So people basically think the same. People all over the world battle with sin (because all are born slave to it). It influences their thinking and actions. Also everyone, everywhere worships (serves) something, devoting their time, energy, effort, etc. You can deny facts all you want but they still remain. I read everything that you write my way (at me).
Again, you learn a lot from a person by his language. I have noticed one thing similar among the uneducated (not all of them). The fact that they can all swear really well, so good job Hank of your mastering of profanity. It also reveals what kind of heart that you have.
Evangelism – comes from the Greek word “euaggelion” which is where we get the English word “Gospel”. It literally means “good news”. Evangelism means sharing the “good news” of Jesus Christ so that man can be set free from His slavery to sin and reestablish a relationship with God. I am not here to convince, just share the “good news” but again, I guess you knew all of that from your so called “Christian” days.
There has been no dishonesty on my part. I have noticed that you guys (liberals or free thinkers or atheists) use the same pattern. When loosing the argument you begin to attack the character of the one who is beating you (good tactic, dishonest on your part for trying to shift the focus). Hypocrisy? Look at your own double standard of using the Bible to disprove God and yet telling me I cannot use the Bible to prove God (look in the mirror).
Glad that I could help the typing speed (we can move to the brain speed later).
Giving your comment at the end to intimidate me from writing the facts will not derail me. Good try though!
You wrote “Reeks like Standard Creationist Operating Procedure: skim-read, isolate what you can”
Standard free thinker/liberal/atheist tactic, described by one himself. At least you admit that you are aware of the tactics that you use even if not admitting the use.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:45 am
See what we have to deal with? Constant goal-post shifting and bold-faced lies, coming from this self-proclaimed herald of the “The Truth”.
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were lied to, in order to make them look the part of the ranting atheist. That’s not a good ethic standpoint for film making, if you’re going for informational documentaries.
Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russel, Charles Darwin…All great men, philosophers, scientists, whatever profession they took.
Does that mean that any atheist worth his salt worships them unconditionally, or holds them in high regard, no matter what?
No. I worship no man, woman, god, devil, pile of gold, whatever you’ll inevitably say that atheists worship.
No golden statues, no piles of money or flocks of women, no gods, nothing is worth worship. Not even your god, if he exists, is worth worship. Anyone who drowns the world, with the power to just forgive them all, isn’t worth a wooden nickel when it comes to worship.
Ahh, but you’ll come up with something condescendingly pious to counter, probably a bible verse or two, then click submit, cackling with delight as you yet again ‘bring light to these godless, mistaken heathens’. What a crock of shit.
Had this been RD.Net, you would’ve been banned for preaching, personal attacks, and not bringing anything new to the discussion.
And yes, I would’ve been warned for the insults tossed your way, but they’re warranted, because you really are a conceited little twerp, your lack of humility prevents you from conceding, as you should, and your ideas are pestilent remains from a desert tribe, undeserving of the amount of focus it gets in our country.
Back to Expelled. The movie really was a piece of trash, the information content was laughable, if not a chilling reminder of how far we have to go to change the perceptions of atheism to all those religious fundamentalists.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Hank
As to the religion of evolution, Hitler was applying evolutionary teaching by naming the Arian race as the superior one (through the process of evolution of course). He wanted to speed up evolution though (survival of the fittest) because he had the same problem with evolution that we have today (lack of proof of it happening) so he decided to wipe out the inferior races beginning with the Jews and of course wanting to move to blacks etc. That is what evolution teaches, there is no sanctity in life. That is why the feminists curse Palin for killing animals and curse her for wanting to stop the murder of innocent babies in their mothers’ womb. How could they think like that? Oh yeah, since we all “evolved” then the life of an unborn child in no more valuable than the life of a wolf (how ridiculous). Hitler wanted to silence all his critics (evolution wants no rival). Hitler took away the right to bear arms (democrats want the same, which interestingly enough usually lean toward atheism/liberalism/free thinking).
In “Expelled” we saw how the critiques of evolution (in the science world) are systematically silenced from even questioning evolution (ie testing it to see if it is legit). By the way, Dawkins was destroyed by Stein (like it or not).
I noticed how you skipped the part about exterminating the inferior races and moved on to scientific experiments to make it “seem” as there is no connection between Hitler and evolution. Good try but you were caught.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Evangelism. Personally, I like to spread the good news about PIE, one of my favorites is mixed berry, though sometimes a piece of cake is very tasty as well. No matter the dessert choice anyone makes, I attempt to understand from whence it comes, and work hard not to attack them or feel superior, as the Dessert Wars were one of the most tragic events in human history.
Nothing is worse than encountering what was once a smart, passionate group of people sprawled across a banquet table. Human beings smeared with berry juice and frosting, smelling of tapioca pudding, forks and spoons poking out of unlikely places. They are dead, or dead to the world. The horror. The waste.
Join with me to prevent this from happening again. The therapy bills from the sight I encountered last time almost required a TARP bill.
pie, cake, pudding, ice cream,no matter. We can all get along if we try.
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/pie/
October 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am
• Mobius 1
I have not changed anything. I have spoken the message from the beginning and will continue to speak the Word of God. It applies to every situation because It exposes all the lies that are brought against God.
Dawkins is a ranting atheists (have you not read what he writes, he was a ranting atheist before the film). So again I say, get your facts straight.
Praise them all you want but the fact is that it is just ignorant to reject God and try to fight against Him (the whole futile/depraved mind argument that we have already had).
All people worship something/someone. I know that you cannot admit it but it is true. Again, whatever you spend the most of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on, that is the thing that you worship. What do you spend the majority of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on? Answer that question and you will know what/whom you worship.
Why did He drown the world? Do you even know? God has the power to forgive but His just characteristic must be satisfied (ie sin must be punished completely). That is why the Gospel is such good news. He, Himself, became the sacrifice. He punished Himself for the sins of the world and justice was served. Now we can come to Him and be freed from our sins without having to pay the price because He has already paid it. Obviously you do not understand how the legal system works. A crime must be punished (there is no simple “forgiveness” and go home). If you are guilty you have to pay. We are all guilty of sin, therefore have to pay the price. God stepped in and paid it for us.
Again, the language of the uneducated is vulgar (either get educated or speak with some dignity). Your words reveal your heart!!!
By the way, you never say anything about the arguments that I give you that destroys your arguments. You just move on to another topic. Why is that? Oh yeah, you cannot accept defeat.
If you will read carefully you will notice that I have been the one who has been attacked personally. I am sure you would like to ban all arguments that disprove your own (Hitler was the same way, Stalin as well).
I hope that you realize that Israel will be here long after you are gone!!!
October 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
Erik: Hitler (like Stalin) was a fan of Lamarckian evolution, a theory in competition with Darwin’s. Hitler even made speeches against Darwin’s ideas. In either case, selective breeding programs predate evolutionary theory by centuries.
And if you want to impress us with your deep knowledge of European history, at least spell “Aryan” correctly.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
Lisa, how sadly you have been led astray by false prophets. Tell me, what food has a scientific name that means “food of the gods”? Only one that I am aware of. Away with your false desserts that do not satisfy the soul! The only true dessert is one containing chocolate, the purer the better.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Dan Klarmann
selective breeding is evolution, survival of the fittest. I see you got the idea even if it were misspelled (never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot, good job).
October 1st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Vicki, don’t think of me as a heretic. Mixed berry PIE is only one of my favorites! Chocolate pie is, perhaps, even more dear to my heart.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
And I was right, you would just pass me off as another typical atheist. What condescending foolishness you show with every post.
You bore me, Erik. You offer nothing new to the table, except bible verses we’ve all known to be tossed our way before.
Lets get back to what you’ve been saying, and refute them, one by one.
Erik wrote “I have not changed anything. I have spoken the message from the beginning and will continue to speak the Word of God. It applies to every situation because It exposes all the lies that are brought against God.”
Your word of god is nothing but an outdated tapestry from an age gone by, thankfully, because if we went by your gods word, we’d still be thinking that witches float because the water rejects them, the planet is flat AND the center of the universe, women are second to men, etc.
Luckily, advances in science gave us medical and technological advances so that we can live in relative comfort, and post on discussion boards through the world wide web.
Here’s something to think about: Since your god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent, why create this grand farce of a life we all lead, only to condemn 90% of the worlds population to a place he created? Wait, I already know your answer: Satan leads everyone astray, and only those who follow the light shall be saved? Does that sum up your answer?
Erik wrote - “Dawkins is a ranting atheists (have you not read what he writes, he was a ranting atheist before the film). So again I say, get your facts straight.
Praise them all you want but the fact is that it is just ignorant to reject God and try to fight against Him (the whole futile/depraved mind argument that we have already had).”
I’ve read The God Delusion, Blind Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow. The man is a brilliant biologist, who’s accomplishments have yielded many advancements in science. Everyone has their own voice, and his is a bit on the incendiary side. As is mine, but it’s hardly ranting, compared to people like you. I see far more christians alone with spit flying from their mouths, calling everyone else a heretic, demanding that they be treated special, and everyone else inferior. What great examples of christian charity.
Praise? I read his books, watch his lectures, listen to his words, but I don’t praise unquestioningly. Get it right, for once.
Erik wrote - “All people worship something/someone. I know that you cannot admit it but it is true. Again, whatever you spend the most of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on, that is the thing that you worship. What do you spend the majority of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on? Answer that question and you will know what/whom you worship.”
There you go, making generalizations about everyone, making the assumption that everyone needs something to worship. Worshiping has no impact on my life, because praying to the ceiling does nothing. Maybe the voices in your head tell you otherwise, but I don’t think you understand psychosis.
I worship nothing. Piles of cash have no feeling, because they’re pieces of paper. My girlfriend would be creeped out by me worshiping her. Adoration and affection are one thing, worship is another.
Get that silly idea out of your head, it’s poisoning your thought process.
Erik wrote - “Why did He drown the world? Do you even know? God has the power to forgive but His just characteristic must be satisfied (ie sin must be punished completely).”
Gotta say, the flood story is a pretty sad one indeed. Never mind the complete loss of life, including the sterilization of ALL terrestrial plants, the inbreeding aspect of all the animals and humans alone is enough to shatter the flood story.
Ah, but the family spread across the ‘globe’, reseeding humanity as we see it today? What about the Native and South Americans, who came across the Bering Strait, ten thousand years before the christian faith even said it started going down? Are you just going to write off the rest of the planet just because it doesn’t fit your view? Come on, quit being such a baby and concede to facts.
Oh, and this link should enlighten you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Land_Bridge
You’re like a kid, hanging onto the Santa Claus story.
Erik Wrote - That is why the Gospel is such good news. He, Himself, became the sacrifice. He punished Himself for the sins of the world and justice was served. Now we can come to Him and be freed from our sins without having to pay the price because He has already paid it. Obviously you do not understand how the legal system works. A crime must be punished (there is no simple “forgiveness” and go home). If you are guilty you have to pay. We are all guilty of sin, therefore have to pay the price. God stepped in and paid it for us.”
Don’t you see the dilemma in all that? He sacrificed himself…to himself? That’s rather inefficient, because a much easier way is for him to come down, plant a nice big chair right on the landscape that would stay for a couple millennium, and basically forgive everyone. To kill himself to satiate himself implies that he enjoys suffering. And, to top it off, Jesus was sinless. An innocent sent to death for the sins of others? Only a truly messed up mind would consider that to be a good way to forgive everyone.
And god was responsible for sin as well, since he created it. By creating an easily accessible tree of knowledge, and allowing Eve to eat of its fruit, implies that he’s incompetent, as well as psychotic. Way to go, man.
Erik wrote - “Again, the language of the uneducated is vulgar (either get educated or speak with some dignity). Your words reveal your heart!!!”
My language is part of the frustration I feel whenever your boorish responses fail to counter anyone elses, yet you trudge on, oblivious to the gaping holes in your arguments.
Erik wrote - “By the way, you never say anything about the arguments that I give you that destroys your arguments. You just move on to another topic. Why is that? Oh yeah, you cannot accept defeat. ”
I said you’d go for the condescension, and you did. Bravo, you’re nothing special. The ignorance that you show only reinforces the appearance that you’re nothing, save a fundamentalist with his fingers in his ears.
I’ve given you links to scientific papers that blow AO out of the water.
I’ve given you personal testimony that blows your assertions that atheists are evil right out of the sky. As have many others.
I can’t accept defeat? Ha! You can’t accept facts, just like you can’t accept the general feeling here from generally happy and content atheists and freethinking people in general. We sicken you, because we get along without god just fine, if not better, than you expected to see. Get over yourself.
Erik wrote - “If you will read carefully you will notice that I have been the one who has been attacked personally. I am sure you would like to ban all arguments that disprove your own (Hitler was the same way, Stalin as well). I hope that you realize that Israel will be here long after you are gone!!!”
So? You come on here with condescending attitude, bold-faced lies about facts, and consider all of our views wrong, no matter how much evidence is shown. And you expect all of us to respect that? I don’t hold ignorance very high on my list of favorable attributes, and you’ve shown that your pigheadedness is more important that facts. I don’t respect that.
And banning all arguments that don’t go with my view? Only someone who doesn’t understand the true nature of tolerance would accuse someone of that.
Quite frankly, any discussion is fine. Yours, however, is tiresome. I’ve heard it all before, a hundred times over. We get it, you’re right, we’re wrong, bible says so, yadda yadda yadda. It’s only when someone preaches, is when I think silencing you for a day or two would be better than letting you go and do your thing. And accusing me of wanting to silence other views, when you go around saying we’re all wrong…You’re quite the hypocritical little shit.
Bring something new to the table, maybe then I’ll be more receptive to your arguments. Bible verses and condescending attitudes get you nowhere.
I’ve evaded nothing. I just choose to ignore your insults. And since that rules out 80% of your posts, I’ll just respond as needed.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
*yawn*
Thank you, Edgar. No more troll-pellets today and no more Mr Nice Heathen. I could get myself drawn into this pointless vortex of bullshit for days!
I shall instead address the congregation:
As we can see here today, dear colleagues, our latest and most pointlessly prolific specimen, Mr Brewer, is indeed conforming to classical Creationist Arguing Procedure (abbreviated to CrAP for expediency): misrepresent the facts (Hitler followed evolution!); project onto your opponents (you’re all worshippers; you’re the ones who shift the goalposts!); flat-out lie (evolution is a religion!); portray any atheist with a public persona as “ranting” (or militant or strident); side-track the topic into one he thinks he can win and then shift the goalposts by re-defining the game (worship!); evangelise constantly (whether on-topic or not and regardless of whether anyone’s actually paying attention); deny absolutely any & all rebuttals of the aforementioned CrAP; employ guilt by association - throw atheists, liberals & freethinkers together in the same pot with Hitler, Stalin and anyone else who’s even done anything bad but who wasn’t overtly religious [as if that in anyway disproves the atheist position anyway]); and then the clincher: the Pigeon Chess manouevre. It goes like this: swoop into a game, knock all the pieces over, flap about & coo a bit, knock the pieces over, shit all over the board then fly back to the nest to claim victory.
Of course, that by no means is a comprehensive list, dear friends. But the good news is that most of the standard CrAP elements have been rolled out by our specimen in just this comment thread alone. “But why is that Good News?” I hear you ask.
Well, all we have to do now is get our specimen to reveal his almost certain homophobia (no doubt carrying a disclaimer that he doesn’t hate them, he cares for them and worries for their souls as they’ve turned away from God) and we’ve got ourselves a FUNDIE BINGO!
[cue the next round of trolling by our pigeon which will no doubt feature coos of "victory is mine", more gooey splashes of CrAP and more generic copy+paste pamphleteering]
October 1st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Probably a good thing I deleted my page and a half rebuttal, simply because it played into his little game. Hank summed it up nicely.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hank wrote: “Of course, that by no means is a comprehensive list, dear friends.”
Off the top of my head, I’d add wrath (messages changed from simple preaching to outright execration), envy (in its most general sense; “those who commit the sin of envy resent that another person has something they perceive themselves as lacking, and wish the other person to be deprived of it” — Wikipedia), and pride (lots and lots of pride). Three out of seven.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“All people worship something/someone. I know that you cannot admit it but it is true. Again, whatever you spend the most of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on, that is the thing that you worship. What do you spend the majority of your time, energy, money, thoughts, etc. on? Answer that question and you will know what/whom you worship.”
OMFG!!!!!111oneoneone
I worship high school marching band. I knew from the moment my kid signed up to play saxophone that it was some kind of cult. Now I’m certain of it. I’m making cookies, sewing flags, hauling instruments and equipment, letting the kids practice at my house, taking minutes at the monthly meetings. . .it goes on and on! Here I thought I was just helping out the kids, enjoying the company of the other parents, showing support for my child, but now I know it for what it truly is!
What the heck am I going to worship after she graduates? Man, that’s gonna be tough.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
But, Lisa, the thought of you enjoying your sacreligious berry “PIE” means that I can’t enjoy my chocolate mousse! In fact, your perverse desire for “mixed” berries undermines the very institution of dessert!
October 1st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
P.S. I don’t hate you, Lisa, I just hate your dessert preferences!
October 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Alison, what I want to know is what I’m going to do when Pink Floyd break up. I mean, they lost Roger Waters years ago, Rick Wright just died and Dave Gilmour isn’t getting any younger. Who the hell will I worship and build altars to and kill infloydels in the name of when there’s no more Floyd?
And, by the way, you warring dessertists are missing the Truth of the Word: it’s all about cake. Those who haven’t seen the Divine Truth of my mother’s home-made fruit cake shall have their souls poked with little pointy things for all eternity!
Not knowing about The Cake is no excuse anymore either: I’ve told you about The Truth Of The Cake now, so there’s no choice but to submit, bow your heads and hand over the keys to your soul! The Cake knows all and sees all and tastes delicious with a cup of milky tea, bless its Fruity Goodness.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
If you don’t get the reference, you don’t get it that the jokes on you, Erik…
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Hank
I was waiting for you to mention fruitcake. That’s just the type of liberal dessert fallacy I expect from you Australian freethinkers. You assume that fruitcake is “perfectly natural” but that is a false assumption my friend!!! There were no fruitcakes in the Garden of Eden. If God had wanted fruit to be soaked in sugar and technicolor artificial dyes, He would have created it that way. Now the fruitcake agenda is even trying to push its way into our public schools!!! You pretend that those little round tins are just “holiday gifts for teacher” but I know better!!!
I know that some of you liberal freethinkers believe that promiscuous cheesecake consumption is also OK, but that is another false belief the Devil plants in your minds. Cheesecake is a wonderful gift from God, but only within the sanction of a marriage with chocolate!!!
And don’t be taken in by “dessert moderates” like Erich, who will tell you “everything is OK in small amounts.” He would even tell you to stop before you have completely stuffed yourself with chocolate. WRONG!!! There is no such thing as “too much chocolate”.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
• Mobius 1
First of all I do not pass you off as anything. I see that you are a person who “thinks” he knows what the Bible says and then proves that he doesn’t by what is written.
I offer what you cannot argue against. You just skip from question to question once I disprove your argument. That is typical. As I have said, I have been down this road before.
As I have already shown you (obviously you do not read) the Bible does not say that the world is flat, in fact It says that the world is round. Secondly, witches, floating on water, center of the universe etc.? Obviously you have been reading about the Bible instead of reading the Bible Itself.
As to women (already been explained). Men and women are created equal in the eyes of God (read the Bible, Genesis 1). Because of sin, man has treated women as lower class citizens (not God’s fault).
Erich criticizes me for writing the same things but if he would read what you write then he would see that you keep bringing the same arguments even though they have already been defeated. Speak about being boring (you keep saying the same thing over and over again without any proof).
Here is the answer. Man is born into sin (everyone after Adam is born a sinner). Every part of our being is tainted by sin. We are the ones who sin (you try to blame God and Satan, do not want to take credit for your own bad choices) God created us with the purpose of having a relationship with Him, for our own benefit. We chose to break that relationship and we send ourselves to condemnation and punishment (action/consequence). Condemnation was never intended for humans but we chose it through disobedience. Again, you try to blame God for your own actions. He gave you free will and you seem to hate that.
You try to take the focus off your beloved Dawkins and place it on Christians (good liberal tactic). Dawkins is educated (never said that he wasn’t) but he is a ranting atheist (read what he writes without the rose colored glasses that you obviously have).
No one is superior or inferior to others (I do not know where you get this argument, obviously made it up because the Bible never says that).
You do not have to agree with me on worship (you can choose the wrong argument if you want). I gave the definition of worship and then showed how it is seen in practical life. I did not say anything about prayer or voices in your heard (again things you have made up and use them as arguing points, learn how to argue). Your response is like a child “no I don’t” here is the evidence to prove that you do “no I don’t” how do you know “because I just don’t”. Pointless argument on your part.
You never answered my question about what you spend your time, effort, energy, money etc. pursuing. Why not? I know why, because it will prove what I said is true!!!
According to evolution the plants will re-generate anyway (from nothing) so you destroy your own argument with that answer.
10,000 years? Must have been invisible people on an invisible world because there was nothing at that time.
God does not enjoy suffering but He did it for you and for me. Yet you choose to reject what He has done for you (very ungrateful on your part). He knew that many/most would reject Him but He did it anyway. Jesus was sinless so He could take on your sin (it makes total sense if you know how to think). Sin had to be paid for and there were 2 options 1) you die and suffer eternal punishment or 2) He dies in your place.
God was not responsible for sin (there you go trying to blame God for man’s actions). God did not create sin, He created free will (which you seem to hate) and man chose to sin. So again you show your ignorance by restating the same failed argument over and over again.
Show me the gaping holes in my arguments, please. You make the same ridiculous claims and I defeat them yet you continue on.
As to AO, I have explained that as well yet you continue on in your ignorant arguments.
Show me some bold face lies, you only bring empty words as usual.
I came on this site to point out some misinformation about the Bible. I corrected the mistake and then the attacks on me began. I have just defended the Scriptures and you hate that.
You may have heard it a hundred times before but you did not pay attention/listen to what was said (see the way you keep bringing up the same arguments that I have defeated).
You ignore what you cannot answer and just bring up new things or restate the same old defeated arguments.
[Admin's note: Numerous portions of this comment constitute "preaching." These paragraphs are attempts to announce what "God" thinks or what "God" wants, as though there is no alternative viewpoint as to what God "thinks" or "wants." In my opinion, such presentations are distracting to our discussions, which (though such comments might well be motivated by a commenter's religious beliefs) should be based on what commenter's themselves think. Such comments seem to invite an endless and unproductive back and forth focused on the authenticity of such claims. Further discussion of what is starkly presented as "God's" opinion, or any quotation to any passages from any religion's Sacred Literature, to the extent that those passages are intended to be unquestionable on any ground, are subject to pruning pursuant to the commenting guidelines regarding "preaching"].
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
• Hank
May I add that you guys mentioned the ranting atheist thing. I guess you so easily overlook the facts. As to worship I made the point take it or leave it (choose to be right or wrong). I have not denied rebuttals that were correct (can’t agree with something that is not true). As to evangelizing, I have already explained that one but you obviously continue to ignore the facts. If liberals, free thinkers, atheists all say the same thing then they put themselves in the same category (you do understand the action/consequence idea, don’t you?). I know that it bothers you that you cannot win so you start pouting and name calling, (children do that too).
See what Erich posted about fundamentalism and you will see that your categorization is wrong.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
And you skip all the evidence presented, because it doesn’t fit your biblical worldview. You use circular logic to ‘defeat’ any argument that is presented before you, therefore reinforcing your idea that you ‘win’.
Here’s how you’ve presented your ‘arguments’: I believe it because it’s in the bible, which god inspired. God did it, therefore, it’s true. Then you quote some bible verses and call it a day.
You write off all the research done by real scientists as inconsequential, write us off as liberal god-hating evil people, and therefore not able to speak on such matters, and write me off as just another ignorant atheist, who probably hasn’t even picked up a bible.
I was a staunch believer, just as much as you. I followed the big 10, prayed to god every night, absolutely believed every story in the bible, that I was told.
Then, in a spur of the moment need to know every story, I picked up the bible I got back in 1990, and started reading. Every verse, every phrase started to have less and less of the luster that it was supposed to have.
I read, Erik. I read about the 42 kids getting ripped apart by the 2 bears, because they were being kids. I read about the unicorn, and read no other justifications for the horrible atrocities committed in the name of god.
I cross-referenced the evidence, as well. The facts went against the bible. Seeing as how I was also curious about how the world worked, and wanted to be a scientist, I knew I couldn’t just toss out the facts. Something was amiss.
When I reached Revelations, I had basically renounced my faith. There was no way rational people could believe in this and still lead normal lives. I finished the book, shaken to the core. What was I going to believe now? Christianity, Islam, Judaism…pretty much every religion with a higher power was out. I’d done research on other religions as part of course work in college, and looking through them, they all had the same basic premise. God, afterlife, heaven and hell…all of it is crap.
I became horribly depressed. I had a null value, and I drifted through life, feeling nothing for the people who believed. This was before I heard about atheism in its true form, from real atheists, and not the caricatures that the church puts out.
So, in my first year of college, after all the classes of the first semester that I had done the research in, I had been persuaded by my friends to join an atheist club. Everyone there was…accepting. They understood the stresses of faithful life, because they went through it themselves.
I won’t go into detail. The club was disbanded officially because the religious clubs on campus kept harassing us. So we met in secret, and I basically developed a place for my own life.
Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. That’s all. What stems from there, though, is up to the person. If they want to do something with their lives, they can pick up humanist traits, so that other people can be seen as people, and the ones in need of assistance are given that help.
And it’s not like I didn’t seek help from the church, either. During my depression, I sought help from my pastor, the supporting staff, all of them. None of them could stop the light of reason from shining through. The kindness shown from the atheists I met for outshines the ‘help’ I got from my old churchmates.
What makes you think your hollow arguments have any effect, other than a cheap laugh?
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Mobius
To prove my point see the unicorn argument that you brought up. You chose a passage and ran with it saying that the Bible teaches about unicorns. I explained what the Hebrew word was and why the KJV translated it the way that it did. I gave you real evidence that disproved your claim. Never did you admit that you were wrong but instead you went on to other arguments that I had already disproved. That is the way it has worked every time.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
• Mobius 1 Says:
Again, you avoid the fact that I have brought evidence from outside the Bible that proves the Bible yet you refuse to admit it (sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la).
You have quoted Bible verses (so you can but I can’t, can we say double standard).
You have written against God, I do not have to call you anything (you have drawn the line in the sand and stepped on the side of the God hater).
I hope you have picked up a Bible (I would encourage you to study It for what It is, instead of having your preconceived ideas guide you, or someone else’s understanding).
I think I see the problem, you believed in “every story in the bible, that I was told”. Yes but did you study the Scriptures for yourself? Did you dig into what is there or just hear a bunch of “sermons” about the Bible? By the way, no one can keep the Big 10 (that is the whole point, they were given to show us our inadequacy, forcing us to depend on Jesus Christ’s help, if we could do it on our own then we would not need Him).
42 kids being ripped apart? What is the context? Maybe if you try to explain it to me you will read the context and actually study the situation. I tried to read the Bible and understood none of It until someone taught me how to study (not just try to explain or understand everything from our 20th and 21st Cent mindset.
As to the unicorn, we have already been over this (read my responses for a change).
What are the “horrible atrocities” that you speak of? Show them to me. Let’s reason together and see where maybe you are mistaken. Why are you not open to studying the subject with someone who is trained in studying the Scriptures?
Quick note, it is Revelation (no s) there is only 1 revelation of Jesus Christ. Minor details like that make all the difference in understanding the Scriptures (I have noticed that you do not pay attention to details).
Do you not understand Revelation? It is very simple to understand. Read the entire book to get the outline, then chapter by chapter to see the theme, then paragraph by paragraph, then verse by verse. It takes work but it is possible.
So you are the almighty one who denounces an afterlife. Just because you do not believe it does not make it true. Atheism gives you hope? Have you studied the philosophies of atheism? There is no hope, we are an accident, life has no meaning, do what you want (eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die). There is nothing new under the sun. People thought like that in ancient times (you guys have not invented anything new).
So you basically joined the religion of atheism. You have that right, still makes you religious. Then you became a missionary for them (and you chastise me for evangelizing). Then you were persecuted and went underground, how religious of you.
So you had a bad experience in church and you have a chip on your shoulder against all Christians. I assure you that we are not all like what you have experienced (that is a big assumption on your part). Again, I help people who want to receive help. I share the message with all and work with those who want help.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Erik, what you don’t seem to understand is that few of us grew up in a cultural void, even those who were raised in nonbelieving households. Because the number of atheists is small, and was smaller still when our parents and grandparents were raising families, the likelihood that an atheist is a former believer (of some kind, usually Christian) is very, very high. In fact, what you’ll find more often than not is that atheists were either very devout, or tried very hard to believe. Because of these things, your exhortations to read the bible, your insistence that it holds things other religious texts don’t, your assumptions that we have never been exposed to the “good news” are being aimed towards the wrong people. We’ve read it. We’ve searched multiple faiths, not wanting to let go of faith entirely, and may know what it’s like to feel as strongly about them as you do about yours. We’ve sometimes tried and tried to work our way around the apologetics that would allow us to completely accept the “good news”, without success.
Elsewhere, you had suggested to me that I should read the bible, and I would come to agree with your point. Well, Erik, back in the 80’s and 90’s, I sang with my church choir and rang handbells in the bell choir. I was on the Hymnal Selection Committee. I was in the Women’s Guild, and went on retreat every year. I was Recording Secretary for the church’s nursery school, and taught vacation bible school during the summer. And to top it off, every Monday morning was bible study.
Now, Erik, there is a great deal of irony here. You see, not only are you assuming that the people here are ignorant of Christian teachings when they are not, but you’re also certain that reading the bible will convince them when it was often what led them towards disbelief in the first place.
I had done a pretty good job of keeping my faith all the way up until bible study. It was the first time I was introduced to the explanations for inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Until then, I hadn’t known that there were so many that explanations were needed. This opened the floodgates, and before long I had too much information to suspend my disbelief any longer.
I tried delving into other faiths as well, reading up on the teachings of Buddha, trying to make heads or tails of the Baghavad Gita, and talking to people whose beliefs were strong, but everything pointed to the same things as the bible did - wishful thinking and speculation by fallible human beings. In fact, the comparisons only strengthened the evidence that no religions and none of their gods had any basis in reality.
My experience is not unique, Erik. Atheists aren’t cave-dwellers. We’ve spent a good deal of time searching, gathering information, hoping to find meaning that co-exists with truth. We’ve done more than just crack the cover of the bible. It’s not likely that it’s changed much since the last time we read it, so there will be nothing new in it to convince us. Nor have the arguments changed, because there haven’t been any events of biblical proportions since the book was written that would serve as evidence - and so the same ones are repeated. So what you’re doing, telling us to read a book we’ve already read and presenting arguments we’ve already heard, will go nowhere in convincing us. It’s really just that simple.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Forget the pigeon-baiting, Mobius old chap, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
But at least a brick wall has the decency to shush.
I vote we let our pigeon shift the goalposts, knock over as many pieces as he wants and continue to CrAP all over the board & claim victory: I for one refuse to play anymore.
[cue even more pigeon CrAP; more flappy evangelising; more stark ignorance of what's plainly visible; more coos of victory; perhaps a few more assertions that we're all exactly the same and we're all going to hell; cue Hank yawning himself into a fucking coma]
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Vicki:
There was nothing BUT fruit in the Garden of Eden. Fruit caused The Fall and the subsequent Saviouring!
Cheesecake is an abomination! It’s fundie chocolatists like you that have caused all the bake-sale wars in history. If everyone just realised the Truth of Fruit Cake and abandoned their false chocolatey idols, there would be no more war, suffering or irreperably stained white blouses!
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Boy are your views skewed. I’ll get back to you after work.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Hank:
Fruit yes, but not fruitCAKE. Use logic!!!
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Erik asks: “What are the “horrible atrocities” that you speak of?”
Well, we’ve already talked about one: the massacre of the Midianites civilians - all the men, women who had had sex (and their unborn babies, presumably) all the male children. - slaughtered. All the virgin girls enslaved.
Erik, if you had read about this incident in a history of the Islamic world, with the Arabic word for God used in place of Jehovah, you would have no trouble recognizing it for what it is: an atrocity. The only reason you don’t think it’s an atrocity is because God ordered it, and He had his reasons. Sorry, “just following orders” is not longer an excuse for war crimes.
The reason why this incident is so disturbing is that things like this are *still* happening today, in Darfur, and quite recently in the Balkans. And the perpetrators still think of themselves as perfectly justified.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Oh dear, Vicki. Poor, depraved illogical a-fruitcake-ist. Fruit necessarily leads TO fruitcake! That IS logic! Repent now before you end up in Satan’s wood-fired pizza oven (he never uses cheese as a topping - he is abhorrent!!!!!)!
—
And Vicki, genocide is never genocide when the good guys do it. If GOD told Moses’ Hebrew stormtroopers to kill ALL the Midianites and take any surviving virgins as their whoreslaves, then that reason alone is enough reason that it was a Good Thing and the Right Thing.
*vomit*
[cue Biblical justification for genocide OR a sermon on how it was just a metaphor OR a lesson about how the Midianites were so evil and nasty they deserved a holocaust]
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
• Alison
You are 4% of the world’s pop claims to be atheists, 16% nothing and 80% believe in some sort of god.
I have never said that you have not been exposed (most have and they chose not to believe, as the Bible claims will happen).
I suggest that people “study” the Bible (big difference between reading and studying). Seems like you had lots of good works (as you know good works do not make you a Christian).
I never said that you are ignorant of Christian teaching. I have pointed out the ignorant arguments about the Bible that many have made (please understand the difference).
As I said studying the Bible for what it is, that is much different than reading looking for what you want to see.
Please show me some mistakes in the Bible (that is what you guys claim day and night yet you bring nothing in the form of evidence, if you do bring something then it is easily explained, see the unicorn argument).
Who said atheists were cave-dwellers? I have seen the way you guys “research” the Bible (run to what others say and then regurgitate it). Go to the Bible and study the passage in context, research the cultural context, research the original language (there are tools for that even if you do not know the original languages).
[Admin's note: The final sentence of this comment constituted "preaching." It was thus deleted. As used at this site, "preaching" is an attempt to announce what "God" thinks or what "God" wants, as though there is no alternative viewpoint as to what God "thinks" or "wants." Such presentations are distracting to these discussions, which (though such comments might well be motivated by a commentator's religious beliefs) should be based on what commentators themselves think. Preaching invites an endless and unproductive back and forth focused on the authenticity of such claims--whether "God" really thinks or desires "X." Further discussion of what is starkly presented as "God's" opinion, or any quotation to any passages from any religion's Sacred Literature, to the extent that those passages are intended to be unquestionable on any ground, are subject to pruning pursuant to the commenting guidelines regarding "preaching"].
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
• Vicki Baker
You wrote “Well, we’ve already talked about one: the massacre of the Midianites civilians - all the men, women who had had sex (and their unborn babies, presumably) all the male children. - slaughtered. All the virgin girls enslaved.”
I think you are a little confused. Are you speaking of the Midianites or the Canaanites? In Numbers God sends Israel to wage war against the Midianites because of their (the Midianites) actions. Also look at what the Midianite women did to the Israelites (please study the context of the situation. It is the same with the Canaanites, they were evil (offering up their babies as sacrifices, murdering, sexual immorality, rape, incest etc.). In other words you are blaming God for punishing the guilty. Strange, I guess you want the victims to be victimized twice, one by the perpetrator and again by not having the guilty punished.
If you will read the entire context and cross reference it then you will see that God tells them why they are to do it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Erik-
Read Numbers 25 and 31 again, with an open mind. Now imagine that you are an Israelite warrior. Moses has just given you a lecture about how the Midianites seduced you into worshipping idols, and caused a plaque among the Israelites (of course similar explanations are offered for every other genocide in history - blaming the victims for causing disease or poisoning wells is very popular).
Moses gives the order to kill all the women and male children. Really place yourself inside the scene now. The victims would have to have been killed by stabbing, strangling, or bashing brains out with a club or rock - no bullets or poison gas back then. Can you imagine the smell of blood, and of urine and feces as the victims lose control of their bladder and bowels - either after death or before, through sheer terror. Imagine the screams of the women as they watch their children die, the cries of children as they watch their mothers die. What goes through your mind as you raise your sword to kill a small boy crouched by the side of his dead mother? Are you filled with righteous indignation at the crimes of the Midianites? Are you filled with joy to be doing the Lord’s will? Do you let yourself go numb and try not to think about what you’re doing? Does the thought cross your mind that maybe Moses got Yahweh’s instructions wrong?
You don’t have to answer - this is not meant to be a “gotcha.” Just promise me you’ll think about it- really think about what happened that day.
This may be too hard, but you might also imagine yourself reading this in the Koran, with the names changed. What would be your reaction?
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
• Vicki Baker
I see you are trying to explain away what is written in black and white. Leading people to worship idols leads them to reject God and brings terrible consequences (slavery to sin, death, wasted lives, etc). The warriors had seen it first hand, seen God’s plague destroying them (even the innocent, they suffer because of the sins of others). You are trying to add what is not there. What had the women done? Look at the sexual sin in chapter 25. Sexual sin destroys in a terrible way (and the innocent suffer). These are the women (in 25) who knowingly led the men of Israel into sin (the guilty being punished is not wrong). I would advise you to read chapters 22-25 in order to see the diabolic plans of the Medianites. Do not just look for what you want to see. Look at all that was happening. You are trying to make the guilty look innocent and become the victims here (notice YOU are doing it). By the way those same women (with their children) were the ones joining themselves with the Israelite men (many of them to be frank). The virgins were spared because they were not guilty of sleeping with the Israelite men. Look at the facts in the context.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Vicki: You read me wrong about chocolate. Chocolate calls to me every waking hour. For me, I will have nothing to do with that false dessert god: fruit cake. Now back to chocolate. You see? It’s always on my mind. And I’ve already confessed the extent to which chocolate pulls my strings. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/01/08/is-it-disgusting-that-depends-on-whose-it-is/
And see here, too. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/24/chocolate-provides-more-of-a-physiological-buzz-than-kissing/
But there’s no reason to have fights about pie versus chocolate. After all, there is chocolate pie.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 am
Erik, my boy, you can’t just explain away everything with words like that.
Wholesale slaughter isn’t justified by deceiving of a few people, or half a population, or whatever.
What god ordered was genocide, which is reprehensibly WRONG, no matter who orders it.
If any highly publicized atheist were to ask for the slaughter of all religious people, we’d rightfully pass him off as a nutcase.
When a religious person does it, we get thousands of people saying that it’s a good idea, stopped only by the laws of the land. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, just to name a few, blame all of societies ills on atheists, homosexuals, feminists, and basically everyone who isn’t like them.
Why the hell are people like that given any word on any official policies? People get killed, in the name of religion, far more often, and far more gleefully, than atheists who kill.
Don’t, for the last time, bring up Stalin or Hitler, because Hitler was Catholic, and Stalin had a cult of personality fascist regime. Atheism did not drive his murder, because atheists fell to his regime as well.
I expect a giant load of bollocks answer from you.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 am
Well, I don’t know if Erik has truly left the building or not. For the record, when asked to contemplate what it would look, smell, and sound like when a group of armed men kill unarmed women, children, and babies, he wasn’t up to the challenge of taking the Bible literally. Even if you take the morally indefensible position that all those women, children, and babies were evil and guilty and deserved to die, how can you deny the actual killing was a messy, sordid business? In fact, the elaborate purification ritual that follows the massacre hints that even Moses and his warriors were a bit grossed out and feeling in need of purification.
The justification of the Midianite massacre requires an incredibly tight circle of reasoning so that no doubt can creep in. God is perfect and just, and so wouldn’t demand the execution of innocent people, ergo, all those women, children and babies deserved to die. But don’t think too hard about what it might look and feel like to kill a guilty evil toddler, because the guilty might start looking innocent if you do that. And don’t think too hard about the fact that the justification for the massacre reads like the justification for almost every other massacre, pogrom, genocide or lynching in history.
Those of us who have read the Bible know that later on, in the age of the prophets, these same tribespeople who massacred the Midianites began groping for more universal ideas of justice. Later still a man named Jesus challenged them to stop feeling self-righteous for keeping to the law, and embrace even more demanding standards of compassion. Erik’s moral reasoning apparently remains stuck at the stage of tribalism and blood vendetta.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 am
Erik wrote:—”I tried to read the Bible and understood none of It until someone taught me how to study (not just try to explain or understand everything from our 20th and 21st Cent mindset.”
Ah. So someone had to interpret it for you. That makes it really clear. When it doesn’t make sense (common sense?) then you need a Master to spin it right for you so it does. Square pegs will fit in round holes if you just tweak it so…
Not to be totally dismissive, though, you are correct, it does require a certain background knowledge to really understand some of what is in the bible—but that just validates the fact that it has been added to, amended, interpreted, re-presented, tweaked, fiddled, and messed with by humans over the last 1800 years, which implies strongly that the same thing had been going on all along—prophecies rewritten to conform to current events, the ones that didn’t work out deleted, stuff forgotten. The fact that KJV misinterprets the word for unicorn suggests that other translations erred, too, and erred earlier, and got it wrong earlier.
In short, it is a flawed document. Hardly holy. Historically suspect. When we argue with you about translation errors and you come back and explain those errors even while acknowledging them AS ERRORS, you somehow manage to not make the larger connection that the errors—if they are errors—probably pre-date all post Yeshua translations.
In other words, not the word of god. Unless you choose to believe it is. But it is the belief that makes it so, not the document itself.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Erich: well because of your devotion to chocolate I suppose I must absolve you of the charge of dessert heresy. It’s quite disappointing really because I had the wood and marshmallow skewers all ready for your burning at the stake. Of course I always eat toasted marshmallows with chocolate in the divine dessert known as S”MORE. The S’MORE of course was invented by God’s Chosen People (USA! USA! USA!). Now I will have to go after Hank, a heathen Australian who probably has never eaten a S”MORE in his life.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
You are all mistaken.
Cheesecake is the answer.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
BOF:
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/521/expelled-on-dvd