151. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23620 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 8:15 pm

"Daniel Judd, BYU professor of ancient scripture, who was not involved in the study, said he agrees with the importance of understanding scriptural context."

I call BS. A lot of theists make this absurd condescending claim that their barbaric scriptures need to be taken "in context"--i.e. the rest of us are just not sophisticated enough to understand them. The truth is that there is no context which justifies the atrocities in the Bible. They'd like to believe in some imaginary context, so they can maintain their childhood indoctrination/fantasy without having to answer the tough questions about what is actually advocated in their scripture.

What exactly is the context of God's command to kill the person who works on the Sabbath? How are we taking this passage out of context, if we interpret it literally as God's command? If we are taking it out of literary context, then the story is in fact a lie; it never happened, and there is no reason to take any other passage in the "divinely inspired" Bible literally either (for example the National Enquirer-esqe paranormal hokey magic trick stuff about Jesus rising from the dead). If we are taking it out of historical context, then God must have thought at some point in the past that it was moral and good and proper (indeed more than that, it was a moral imperative) to kill someone working on the Sabbath--but that command no longer applies today. This is nothing but moral relativism, which is directly contradictory with the idea of a perfect God.

152. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23507 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 7:27 am

Mr. Bizarro is at it again, posting the same old arguments that have been refuted a hundred times over in other threads. Here of course we have the usual god of the gaps: we don't know yet if or how the universe was created, therefore it must be God. You can all expect that he will continue to willfully ignore our arguments again. I don't think the term "intellectually dishonest coward" is too uncharitable a description of his behavior. What a shame--he obviously has a lot of smarts, but he just can't let go of his parents' indoctrination.

So a question for Bizarro: Do you believe with "reasonable faith" that your hypothetical "supernatural creator of the universe" is the perfect and truthful author of the Christian Bible and is exclusively described by the Christian religion? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

153. Atheists come in last

Comment #22893 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Old Coppernose writes:
"I acknowledge the point, but can I ask that posters not refer to the US in a way that suggests that all contributors here are USA? It's a tad rude, espeially as RD himself is a Brit and there may actually more Brits posting here than USA."

Point taken. ;)



Old Coppernose writes:
"NOt true. The NT is considered to be a "New Deal" to overturn the OT "Old Deal". There are many problems with the idea of course, and many genuine conradictions but from the Xian perspective this is not one of them. Jesus appears to state quite clearly he is changing the rules, and there is no contradiction from a Xian point of view, anymore than valuing the US Constitution is udermined by the fact that it has been amended.......there's no reason why God cant change his own rules if he has a mind to."

I would say the Xian idea that God's rules can be changed is itself a contradiction with the idea of a perfect God. If God changes his mind, then he is admitting that he was wrong before.



Old Coppernose writes:
"This is true, but imo OT/NT differences are not imo as a rule good evidence for the point. There is no justification for claiming that a religious view cant legitinmately supercede a previous one. After all, if it were not possible, then there could be no input from Jesus at all."

Exactly. I think the very idea of a jesus character coming down and changing the rules is an admission of religious fault. Theists can claim to follow an ever-perfect god, or they can admit that god is morally relativistic and flawed and supercedes his own previous rules--but they can't do both.

Of course, you are correct that it is easy to find contradictions within just the NT. Even one such contradiction is enough to debunk the ridiculous idea of a "perfect inerrant divinely-inspired bible".

154. Atheists come in last

Comment #22884 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Old Coppernose writes:
"NO problem with this at all. The first merely means that the believer themself has to worship that god, it says nothing about how a government should conduct itself."

But if all the statements in the Bible are just personal and non-governmental, then certainly our government cannot have been formed from Christianity as is so often claimed by desperate theists. They can't have it both ways. If theists are going to claim that our laws against stealing and murdering come from the Bible, then they must also admit that a truly Christian government would have a law against other gods as well. Thus there *is* a contradiction between the US constitution and a theist's claim that the constitution was derived from the Bible.



Old Coppernose writes:
"This is a clear example of the OT superceded by the NT."

In religion, "supercedes" is just another word for "contradicts". That's the disadvantage of God: God is and always has been perfect, so everything he said in all his words must be true and correct and perfect. The fact that the Bible internally contradicts itself just goes to show that the Bible was not in fact written by the perfect God, but rather by fallible humans.

Humans are different than God. For human thought, the word "supercedes" has a real meaning different from "contradicts". We aren't perfect, which gives us the ability to learn and correct our previous mistakes. In human thought we can reasonably and correctly think of our views being superceded by better views. The fictional God doesn't have that luxury. Sucks to be him. :)

155. Atheists come in last

Comment #22876 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm

fonex_86 writes:
"Democracy fails exactly because it equates every idiot with the most talented of humans. What's the use of advocating reduction of carbon emissions (by the more intelligent 15% of society) just to be trumped by the remaining 75% whose intellect is reminiscent of neanderthals?"

That is an interesting thought fonex. Consider though, that the problem here may be lack of education or a lack of *willingness* to educate oneself, rather than democracy itself. One of the nice things about a democracy/free market is that education is good! The more you know, the more money you make (kinda sorta). So there is a strong incentive to be educated.

To bring it back to religion, one of the seemingly strongest reasons to remain *un*-educated about certain things is religion. Religious people don't want to lose their faith, so they studiously ignore certain types of knowledge. This has happened with all sorts of things--flat earth, geocentric universe, evolution, etc. The whole principle of the "god of the gaps" is anathema to discovery and progress: we don't know, therefore God did it, therefore we should just give up and not try to figure it out. So perhaps we can say religion promotes ignorance which in turn reduces the effectiveness of a democratic form of government.

156. Atheists come in last

Comment #22858 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Bizzaro writes:
"You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible."

And you are demonstrating a very dishonest "knowledge" of the Bible. God gave you a COMMAND: "Kill anyone who works on the Sabbath". Who do you think you are, Bizzaro, to pretend that this COMMAND doesn't apply to you? The Old Testament contains GOD'S WORD--how dare you blaspheme it by denying it.

Religious freedom? In the Bible? What a laugh. No, actually, the LAW OF GOD says not to worship other gods. The 10 commandments still apply. If this were a christian country, we would make laws against other gods just like we have a laws against stealing and murder (even if all those christian laws were "personal" as you claim). In fact, our constitution goes in exactly the opposite direction: we forbid the government to make laws against any other gods. This is an anti-Christian tenet, both in letter and spirit.

The old testament and the 10 commandments are a part of the Bible, they are God's word. I understand why you want to sneakily and dishonestly try to deny that, since there is so much in that part of the Bible that is so embarrasing to anyone who isn't a complete barbarian. But that doesn't make your denial true. If you want to be a Christian, you have to defend the old testament--that is as much god's word as the new. So, once again, answer me this: does the first commandment from god contradict the first amendment of the US constitution?



Michael writes:
"You have come halfway along that path by rejecting the nastiness of the Old Testament. You now have to just discard a lot of the New Testament."

Rejecting the Old Testament is not "halfway along the path", as Mr Bizzaro's posts demonstrate admirably. Theists only reject the OT as an intellectually dishonest way to pick and choose what part of God's word to accept, in an attempt to artifically win an argument for God as a whole.

157. Atheists come in last

Comment #22844 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Bizzaro writes:
"I will say however that there never will be a conflict between the Biblical God and the Constitution. Considering that the Constitution is based on biblical concepts, there will never arise a contradiction between the two documents."

Absolutely hilarious. OK, let's start with the 10 commandments. Commandment 1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Now onto the US Constitution, the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Bizzaro, explain how these two statements are not contradictory.

toomanytribbles writes:
"if faced with a dilemma.. to uphold the constitution or to serve one's higher power, god whatever.. what would a religious president do?"

Great question. A seriously religious Christian president would advocate the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath. Among other barbaric nonsense. Fortunately, none of our presidents have really taken their Christianity seriously.

158. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22819 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 8:32 am

Donald says:
"When I say that moral codes are human invention I do not mean that they are arbitrary, any more than the shape of a wheel is an arbitrary shape. Moral codes have evolved within human culture to jointly serve the self-interest of individuals and the communities in they live."

A very nice analogy. Kudos. Theists make two mistakes in this regard: (1) they assume that their hypothetical "supernatural creative force" aka "god of the gaps" has anything at all to do with morals or the bible or any particular religion, and (2) they assume that attaching god to morality somehow makes it any less arbitrary than human-originated morality.

159. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22790 by kkant on February 22, 2007 at 10:29 am

So, Bizzaro, we are taking the bible "out of context" when we condemn it? If we are taking it out of literary context, then the bible is a fairy tale masquerading as truth (in other words, a lie). If we are taking it out of historical context, then presumably you think there was some time in the past when it was good and moral to be the complete bastard that god makes himself out to be. Which one do you pick?

Incidentally, is this Bizzaro guy really a biology major from Liberty University? Same guy who appeared in the Lynchburg Q&A session, I wonder? LMAO.

160. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22726 by kkant on February 21, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Yes, these theists like gimlibengloin and "Bizzaro" like to post a troll comment in the thread, and then ignore the replies which are too inconvenient for them. It's obvious they don't have a response to rational arguments. Then they post in a new thread with the same old nonsense, as if it is something new and useful. How pathetic.

Unless they are stupid, I'm sure they realize they are ignoring the arguments they can't answer. One wonders why they do this. It is a common problem with theists, and the root cause of it is probably the "investment factor". They have believed all their lives, and they simply can't admit to themselves that they've been wasting all their time. Sad.

161. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22703 by kkant on February 21, 2007 at 1:29 am

As Norm said on his blog, it appears to me that Sam is starting to feel sorry for Andrew. I wonder, has Andrew even paused to consider the myriad questions that Sam has posed to him? I saw him attempt to address *one* of Sam's questions (as if doing a favor), and the answer turned out to be incredibly sneaky and shameful--as if he didn't want to admit to believing in all that biblical nonsense. Someone said earlier that Andrew is supposed to be "intellectually honest". Given his total disregard and explicit ignoring of Sam's questions, I would disagree with that assessment.

162. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22403 by kkant on February 16, 2007 at 11:33 am

ADParker writes:
"Just imagine an African-American man having to deal with the prejudices of the KKK, and in doing so gains a greater sence of self-worth and inner strength. So concludes that since it was the KKK that facilitated this improvement, he would join and support the KKK and their ideals!
Ridiculous! Yet no more ridiculous than supporting a religious system that openly discriminates against you"

That is an extremely apt and illustrative analogy. Thank you.

163. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22343 by kkant on February 14, 2007 at 10:59 pm

"Some feel that way about McDonalds." <--- HAHAHAHAHA!! :D

OK, post of the month award goes to Logicel.

164. Kansas science standards evolve again, becoming pro-Darwin

Comment #22340 by kkant on February 14, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Bizzaro: Maybe you consider the question of evolution to be unanswered. It is easy to insert God as the answer to unsolved scientific problems. What is your position on the matter of these unanswered questions? There are two possible answers: "I don't know" and "God did it". Which one do you choose?

165. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22092 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Great interview, RD. Friendly and non-threatening, with a "let's discuss this like reasonable civilized people" attitude. By contrast, those jokers on last week's Superbowl "atheism panel" looked even more bigoted and foolish.

The panel this time was not too bad. At least the secularity of government was firmly established. It was too bad though that the "are atheists immoral" question was left hanging. Especially since that question is so easy to deal with.

166. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #22049 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 7:05 pm

So, stpetes, are you religious? A young-earth creationist perhaps?

167. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #22014 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 10:25 am

Excellent post, uzi.

168. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21680 by kkant on February 10, 2007 at 2:29 pm

You trying to convert somebody, gimlibengloin? :D

If you believe in an imaginary friend, your potential is restricted to the limits set by the works of that friend (e.g. the Bible). Thus you get Kent Hovind's shenanigans, the persecution of Galileo, and all the rest.

The fact that we know we are the product of natural selection does not in any way diminish our power to fulfill whatever potential we have.

169. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21355 by kkant on February 8, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Brilliant response from Sam on 2/8. The feint and parry work has been great on both sides, but Sam is clearly the winner here. He is also correct, of course, and that usually helps in a debate. :) But we all know how slippery theists can be in any argument, even if they're wrong. Sam has done a great job of nailing him to specifics and engaging him beyond hope of retreat.

170. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20827 by kkant on February 6, 2007 at 5:50 pm

My angry email to CNN:


The recent Paula Zahn panel discussion on "discrimination against atheists" was pretty atrocious and brought to light some fairly neanderthal attitudes.

Karen Hunter said "[atheists] should just shut up". I wonder how she would feel about the leaders of the civil rights movement being told to "just shut up". Martin Luther King, just shut up. Disgusting.

Another point was made: "America is a Christian country". That is untrue. Look no further than Thomas Jefferson for confirmation. Before 1776 we had almost two millenia of Christian governments; and all we got for it was the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. In 1776 they decided to do something new: separation of church and state. And only 200 years later, look where we are now. Church/State separation is unquestionably one of the reasons for this positive effect.

Related issue: "freedom of religion is not freedom from religion". What is that supposed to mean? It's illegal to be an atheist? We should force sectarian prayers in schools? Why not just let the kids pray in school if they want to, and leave the forced prayer where it belongs: in church.

Finally, why was there not an atheist on your panel? You had a discussion about atheism, with no atheists present. On the contrary all of them seemed to be very fervent believers in God. This discussion looked very much like something from Fox "News".

171. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20326 by kkant on February 1, 2007 at 9:07 pm

You know, it seems to me that Dr. Pigliucci is not a very good debater. Look at the absurdity of the position that Hovind has to defend--yet at several points in the debate he is on the offensive and "sounds smarter" than Pigliucci. Pigliucci tends to get sidetracked by water-muddying side issues that Hovind introduces, and many of his logical victories are lost in this noise.

I bet if Dr Dino's parents had forgotten to tell him the truth about Santa Claus, he'd be using those great argumentative techniques and convincing millions that They better not pout or cry, because He is coming to town.

172. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20117 by kkant on January 31, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Excellent rebuttal from Sam on 1/29, and very eloquently written.

I also applaud nine9s and Kingasaurus's comments, which reveal of the true nature of Andrew's "argument":

Un-freaking-believeable. "This question is incredibly hard to solve, so science can't do it, so you might as well believe whatever you want."

"Since your sledgehammer isn't strong enough to break this boulder in half, I'm using a wet newspaper instead and I'm imagining in my head that the boulder is split in half...Presto! See? In some alternate manner, I've broken the stone, and my 'path' to breaking the rock is just as good as yours."

Indeed. Even if you (invalidly) assume the existence of a "creative force", it is still unjustified to claim that this creative force is even an abstract version of god (let alone the completely unrelated versions of god represented by Christianity or any other religions). The term "god" (even in its abstract form) *must* imply intelligence, if it is to have any meaning beyind the more prosaic term "reality". The notional creative force alone does not imply intelligence, and therefore does not imply god.

This gets back to the question that Sam has been asking Andrew from the outset: "what exactly [do] you believe about reality that requires the framework of Christianity?" Andrew ignored this, he obviously just doesn't have an answer to it. I'm sure he will continue to ignore it. Instead, as Norman said, we'll continue to see lame excuses from him.

173. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19248 by kkant on January 25, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Norman wrote:

The way I define things like "truth" and "belief" makes me tend to agree with kkant, however, I think Sullivan defines "truth" and "belief" very differently. It's more like he is talking about enjoying a novel than believing a scientific theory.

I don't think that is what Sullivan is driving at. He is basically not driving at anything specific. As MouthAlmighty said above, he's just making up something vague and wishy-washy to "define" truth, so that he can say it means anything he wants. Including changing the meaning in the middle of the argument.

They may be talking past each other. Sam needs to ask what in the world Andrew means by terms like "truth" and "belief." Whatever Andrew means, he doesn't include anything rational in defining those terms.

Sam already asked him to define "God" and what part of the Christian framework he needed to explain reality/truth/whatever. Sullivan didn't respond, of course; and if Sam asks again, Andrew will continue to ignore it again. With good reason--he knows it's BS, and if you start talking concretely about BS, it's exposed for the BS it really is. I don't think Andrew is talking past Sam; Sam has heard these arguments before, just like all of us, and he knows how to respond to all of it as he has shown very well in this exchange. It certainly seems true the other way though, that Sam is talking past Andrew. But that's Andrew's fault for ignoring most of what Sam says.

I think it's funny how these types of arguments almost universally get shifted by the faithful into these extremely vague and esoteric "quests for unachievable truths". As if that is any reason to believe in the Bible or any other religion. And as if people believe in the Bible as part of that quest. People believe in the Bible because they're afraid not to. But no one likes to think that, so people like Sullivan invent these absurd nonsensical shifty-eyed structures to justify it as something more than simple fear and guilt.

BTW, best part of this exchange for me so far was Sam's description of Galileo's treatment by the Church, then and now. Vomit, indeed.

174. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19240 by kkant on January 25, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Sullivan says:

Where I respect your position, you refuse to respect mine.

Complete BS. The way you show respect for your opponent is to acknowledge the other's arguments and respond to them. Harris has gone out of his way to respond to Sullivan's arguments. In fact I think Harris has granted Sullivan's "positions" far more respect than they deserve. It is very obvious that Sullivan has not returned the favor. Not only does he totally ignore Harris's arguments and rebuttals, but he goes on to make new (often irrelevant) claims that are based on points that Sam has already refuted.

The only remotely interesting thing in Sullivan's latest rebuttal is his criticism of Sam's neurological theories. He buttresses this by claiming that this theory, along with history and MATHEMATICS (guffaw), are different from science, which fact therefore somehow legitimizes religion and faith. I'm sure Sam will go ahead and point out the many obvious flaws in this totally absurd line of "reasoning". Pearls before swine IMO, since Sullivan is just going to ignore it again.

Of course, Sullivan's own case is complete hogwash and totally refuted beyond hope, so he has to resort to this sort of desperate "aha, gotcha!" type of "argumentation", not to mention the usual moving of goalposts (defining truth arbitrarily) that the faithful always resort to when faced with the fact that all their beloved scriptures are bogus. Never mind that moving the goalposts automatically invalidates those scriptures anyway. Like Kurt Vonnegut said, paraphrased, even the most intelligent people can hold the most contradictory thoughts simultaneously...as if their finely adjusted mind is missing just that one geartooth.

175. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19183 by kkant on January 25, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I would like to ask Mr Sullivan the following question: "Can you name any argument, any event that would made you lose your faith?"
Like: "If .... happens then I will become an atheist."

You remember the Electric Monk, of course:

"If on the other hand he went to pay his respects to The Door and it wasn't there...what then?
The answer, of course, was very simple. He had a whole board of circuits for dealing with exactly this problem, in fact this was the very heart of his function. He would continue to believe in it whatever the facts turned out to be, what else was the meaning of belief?
The Door would still be there, even if the door was not."

Douglas Adams is always pithy.

I notice (as does Sam) that Andrew almost totally lacks any responses to Sam's arguments. So much so that one wonders whether Andrew has even read Sam's posts at all. On the other hand, Andrew and other faithful Christians have already shown a remarkable ability to cherry-pick and lie to themselves about their scriptures and their faith. It is therefore not very surprising that they demonstrate a great talent for doing the same things to an antagonist's arguments. This is certainly one of the reasons why it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation about faith with the faithful.

176. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18105 by kkant on January 18, 2007 at 10:37 am

I've read The Onion before, I know what it's about. I've even heard the Intelligent Falling joke before, in the context of the various creationism debates.

Nevertheless I read this article without seeing the opening lines. And I really thought that the joke was, in fact, coming true. It is really amazing that I could so easily attribute such an absurd parody to real people. But given the history of such thinking in the Bible Belt--this is an extremely believable article! So is the one posted by Spaceman Spiff (50). You could put either of these articles almost word-for-word in the NY Times with absolutely no trouble at all.

177. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #17881 by kkant on January 17, 2007 at 8:53 am

roach (10):

I agree that the audience was surprised by RD's no-holds-barred statements, and that such statements are unexpected in America's "respect all faith" attitude. However, it is incorrect to call their reaction "booing", in the sense of militant opposition to the presenters views. If RD was to present his material at a Billy Graham rally, he would get boo'ed. In the Colbert audience I would say we are looking at a relatively open-minded segment of American culture, and I was about to be dismayed if there was really booing of RD's book in such a venue. Fortunately this was not the case, and I hope RD understands that as well.

178. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #17830 by kkant on January 16, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Note to Richard Dawkins-- You mention in this radio interview that you received "boos" at your appearance on the Colbert Report, and suggested therefore that even at such a liberal institution certain religious beliefs were sacrosanct and unassailable. I was greatly curious about this, so I pulled up this episode online (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/colbert_dawkins.html). I think there may a cultural mixup here. What you heard from the audience was not booing. The ooohs and aaahs you heard from the audience is a standard reaction used by American audiences whenever a gauntlet has been thrown down, usually by a challenger who may be perceived as an underdog against a figurative "undefeated champion". Your statements about the falsehood of such widely-held beliefs was no doubt taken in that manner. So really, the audience's reaction was a demonstration of the their appreciation of the monumental nature of the task of removing delusion, not a disagreement with your views.