When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

Evolution News and Views ^ | April 28 2011 | Davld Klinghoffer

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.

On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.

I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.

Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.

Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,

We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.

Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.

That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!

It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.

There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,

I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.

A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.

There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.

The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.

Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.

[James C. Bennett]

To make the problem more interesting, clones are not merely twins. If the genetics is tampered with (we do it today, with bacteria, whose genome is spliced with human DNA to produce synthetic human insulin), then the clone is no more a twin. Would such an entity have a “soul”?

I’ll return after a while here, to see if there are any fruitful replies. Thanks in advance.

[James C. Bennett]

LOL, no, Godzilla.

 Yet God created time, therefore it is time that is subject to God and not vice versa. Our chronological framework forbids knowledge of the future - yet that isn't a limitation of God. So that 'time' doesn't affect God in the same manner as it affects us. Because God is the creator and master of time the rest of your logic chain unravels.

So, how does God order sequential events without time? If time does not separate God's actions, then the actions all superpose - thus God would end up creating the Universe and destroying it, simultaneously. It is only time that can save God from this absurdity. Without time, God cannot avoid the absurdity. So, what is in the realm of what? Clearly God, in that of time.

 

Also, when "God created time", how does God choose a moment to create it? Before time, there is no reference. If God did create this "time", then time would be God's first creation.

[Godzilla]

I have not claimed anywhere that the tribals (individual tribal children, as I originally stated on this thread) are "saved". This is a concept I don't believe in, so what construct would I be providing for the "saving" of these tribals? I can't type this any slower, Godzilla!

dodging the specifics once again (sigh)

I have supplied the definition long ago on this thread, and you know it, too. Why are you obfuscating here? You and I both know very well what I am talking about - people who haven't heard the Gospel.

I was very specific on several posts indicating that 'groups' which the context of your statement was made was invalid. The 'salvation' issue only applies to individuals.

I know that, hence my usage of the word, highlighted 'CAN'. This "general revelation" CAN save the tribal, yes?

Acceptance CAN lead them toward the SPECIFIC revelation of God's grace james - typing really slow now. The path does not equal the destination.

A 7th Century Maya tribal didn't have that option. Neither did any of the other tribals in his land. How are they "saved," if any?

IF the INDIVIDUAL Mayan sought after God via the knowledge provided by General revelation - God would have provide that individual the specific revelation necessary for them to make the final acceptance of God's grace and understanding. Do you have first hand knowledge otherwise?

Now if this deity will approach and re-establish that communication with certain tribals to "save" them, why not every one else?

Pssssst that has been done - look up Jesus in the bible james.

For starters, that would eliminate the need of man-derived and man-sourced scriptures such as the Bible or the Quran, or any other such texts.

I'm glad God isn't modeled after your thoughts and ways james. There is no justification on your part why NOT have a written scriptures. If God is postulated, then God can use man to write scriptures and preserve those same words. Secondly, as pointed out - read Romans again james, it provides additional insight to those 'tribals' as well.

LOL, no. Irrationality is my threat. Islam is certainly a threat. Your claim is false, and a lie.

Same problem, different name and justification. since I see no similar assaults against other religions of you and your co-atheists, you actions speak louder than your words james.

I don't believe in supernatural entities.

Ahhh, you BELIEVE - a function of faith involved here eh?

See my previous comment on the impossibility for an entity outside time to order sequential events.

See my other reply.

[Godzilla]

This is something neither you, nor I will be able to answer with confidence.

You perhaps - which is why any clone/twin created should fear atheists james.

I will ask you this, would conducting research on unfertilised eggs and unfertilised sperm, separately, be unethical?

No, because they are not a human being. Unfertilized sperm (0.o)

It's a tough question, because if human cloning is executed, it would pose the problem of defining what the rights of the clone would be. As a believer in the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you) as the source of all morality, I would have to empathise with the feelings of this sentient clone and grant him or her the rights I myself enjoy.

Why james - since rights are inferred to be God-given. And what evolution produced the 'golden rule' james? Both concepts imply the existence of God.

[boatbums]

Here is another place: http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

[Godzilla]

I am talking about a clone, Godzilla. One created by scientists out of body cells.

Duh james, yet there is a common principle here - both result in a created human life.

Yet, the clone is a separate individual from the source, is it not?

Again - the analogy of the twin is still applicable since they come from the same single cell(s) that then split.

The clone needs a "new soul" to be introduced into it. Since the creation of the clone is itself a product of the whims of Man, this deity of yours (God) is thus forced to intervene and create a "new soul" for the clone.

A sperm and egg are joined in a test tube creating a new human - new life, new soul. I see nothing different here. There is no intervention, just an established process james. But then atheists don't acknowledge 'souls' now do they. All the more reason for any human clones to fear you and your kind.

I really am perplexed why you ask this. I don't know what was lost in the translation, but if it has escaped you, my way of showing why I find belief in supernatural entities to be irrational is by admitting for the sake of argument the existence of the said entity, temporarily, and then bringing about a real, undeniable absurdity that results from its characteristics.

I do this to point out the hypocrisy of your strawman because you structure it with the intent to fail. Yet I've already pointed out that there would be no inconsistencies for this clone to have a soul and spirit any more than for a twin to have a soul and spirit too. Therefore you need to clarify the foundational 'theology' you are 'representing' with your examples james.

I hope I have clarified your doubts.

Nope, only reinforced the bias attached to you challenges.

[ejonesie22]

Excellent and very correct answer.

[metmom]

Case in point.

As predicted.

[Godzilla]

So, how does God order sequential events without time? If time does not separate God's actions, then the actions all superpose - thus God would end up creating the Universe and destroying it, simultaneously. It is only time that can save God from this absurdity. Without time, God cannot avoid the absurdity. So, what is in the realm of what? Clearly God, in that of time.

Pssssssst james - if God created time, then God is powerful enough to control it to his ends. Truly you have no clue as to what it means for God to be all powerful and knowing - attributes you fail to include in your little thought experiment. You assume God is subject to time. I state that it is the biblical understanding that time is subject to God. Thus there is no paradox involving the creation and eventual replacement of the universe.

[ejonesie22]

It is arguments like these that convince me more and more that there is a God...

Not that I need it, but...

[James C. Bennett]

dodging the specifics once again (sigh)... I was very specific on several posts indicating that 'groups' which the context of your statement was made was invalid. The 'salvation' issue only applies to individuals.

Obfuscation, Godzilla. Here is where I BEGAN with the isolated tribal problem:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2713145/posts?page=1940#1940

"1. What is the mode of salvation for, say the stillborn infant, of a member of a tribe that has not yet heard of your religion? Is it damned?"  

I have clearly invoked the individual, from the very beginning. Your failure to not recognise my implication of the individual in the comments that followed, is not my fault. My surprise at this complaint when it was brought to my notice very late into the thread, whereupon I immediately clarified it again with Boatbums, proves my intent all along. I have no reason or benefit from constraining you by forcing you to answer for a collective, instead of the individual. For my purposes of the debate, it was more than sufficient for an individual tribal member's instance of being "saved". You understood this, and knew this. Please, this nonsense has got to stop.

IF the INDIVIDUAL Mayan sought after God via the knowledge provided by General revelation - God would have provide that individual the specific revelation necessary for them to make the final acceptance of God's grace and understanding. Do you have first hand knowledge otherwise?

This is a classical fallacy of forcing me to prove the negative. You are proposing this exception, so the onus is on you to prove why you assert this exception.

Argument from ignorance

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.

Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. [Fortean Times Number 82.]

See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.

 

I'm glad God isn't modeled after your thoughts and ways James.

You prefer to know of God through the words brought to you by mere men?

There is no justification on your part why NOT have a written scriptures. If God is postulated, then God can use man to write scriptures and preserve those same words.

The violent confrontations, the bloody wars over what's God-said, and what's not - the formation and compilation of the Bible by committee, all could have been avoided by direct, individual revelaton. If your deity can preserve the scriptures, then why are there so many versions of it?

Same problem, different name and justification. since I see no similar assaults against other religions of you and your co-atheists, you actions speak louder than your words James.

Why do you lie and bear false witness, Godzilla? Why do you force me to call you a liar?

Only yesterday (and one out of, literally, thousands, of comments):

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Sick, amoral animals.

Their Quran is the anarchist's manual.

They also institute something known as a “temporary marriage” - a form of “legalised” prostitution where they “marry” the hooker for a couple of hours.

Add to that, the “triple Talaq” where a man can divorce a wife if he utters “talaq” three times. It's a legal procedure for divorce in Muslim hell-holes.

Islam should not only be banned, it should be extirpated. Destroying the Kaaba, for starters, will bring down a couple of “pillars” of their false faith. Nazism wasn't tolerated, so why is this? 

3 posted on Thu Jun 09 2011 23:01:05 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)

 

Ahhh, you BELIEVE - a function of faith involved here eh?

No,  said I DON'T believe in it. Is 'bald' a hair colour, Godzilla?

See my other reply. 

Replied to, before this one.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2713145/posts?page=1940#1940

"1. What is the mode of salvation for, say the stillborn infant, of a member of a tribe that has not yet heard of your religion? Is it damned?"  

Sick, amoral animals.

Their Quran is the anarchist's manual.

They also institute something known as a “temporary marriage” - a form of “legalised” prostitution where they “marry” the hooker for a couple of hours.

Add to that, the “triple Talaq” where a man can divorce a wife if he utters “talaq” three times. It's a legal procedure for divorce in Muslim hell-holes.

Islam should not only be banned, it should be extirpated. Destroying the Kaaba, for starters, will bring down a couple of “pillars” of their false faith. Nazism wasn't tolerated, so why is this? 

[James C. Bennett]

You perhaps - which is why any clone/twin created should fear atheists James.

I already explained, Godzilla. Try this again, and this time go through as slowly as possible, Godzilla:

This is something neither you, nor I will be able to answer with confidence. I will ask you this, would conducting research on unfertilised eggs and unfertilised sperm, separately, be unethical? Clones are produced from one of the former, combined with the DNA from another body cell, by-passing the natural mode of fertilisation through the union of the gametes. It's a tough question, because if human cloning is executed, it would pose the problem of defining what the rights of the clone would be. As a believer in the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you) as the source of all morality, I would have to empathise with the feelings of this sentient clone and grant him or her the rights I myself enjoy. 

 

No, because they are not a human being. Unfertilized sperm (0.o)

Since clones are produced from this material, without fertilization using BOTH gametes, would producing clones be unethical?

 And what evolution produced the 'golden rule' james? Both concepts imply the existence of God. 

Already answered, Godzilla:

Vampire Bats and the Golden Rule

Michael Shermer writes in The Science of Good and Evil: Why people cheat, gossip, care, share, and follow the golden rule:

Examples of premoral sentiments among animals abound. It has been well documented that vampire bats, for example, exhibit food-sharing behavior and the principle of reciprocity. They go out at night in hordes seeking large sleeping mammals from which they can suck blood. Not all are successful, yet all need to eat regularly because of their excessively high metabolism. On average, older experienced bats fail one night in ten, younger inexperienced bats fail one night in three.

Their solution: successful individuals regurgitate blood and share it with their less fortunate comrades, fully expecting reciprocity the next time they come home sans bacon. Gerald Wilkinson, in his extensive study of cooperation in vampire bats, has even identified a “buddy system” among bats, in which two individuals share and reciprocate from night to night, depending on their successes or failures. He found that the degree of affiliation between two bats—that is, the number of times they were observed together—predicted how often they would share food.

Since bats live for upwards of eighteen years among the same community, they know who the cooperators are and who the defectors are. Of course, the bats are not aware of being cooperative in any conscious goodwill sense. All animals, including human animals, are just trying to survive, and it turns out that cooperation is a good strategy.

This account of food sharing among vampire bats was recently broadcast on my favorite podcast, WNYC’s Radiolab.

Wilkinson, who conducted this research, describes summer nights he spent on a cattle ranch in Costa Rica, lying down inside of hollow, four-story trees along a river, getting pooped on while observing the bats. Often one bat would snuggle up to another bat and begin licking at its mouth, almost like they were kissing, but really she was licking up blood that the second bat was regurgitating.

WATCH VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loXKlwAjwfc&feature=player_embedded

Wilkinson then controlled which bats ate and which didn’t, and kept track of who fed whom, and he found that there are friendship networks among bats. If hungry Sally feeds full Agnes on the first day, then hungry Agnes invariably feeds full Sally the second day. And this isn’t just among related bats; friendship ties are actually more predictive than kinship ties of who feeds whom.

Wilkinson also mentions that large mammals were abundant on the plains 40,000 years ago. But when the large mammals became scarce due to climate changes, vampire bats had to develop a way of working together. Being nice wasn’t an option; it was the only way for the species to survive.

Have a listen to the broadcast: It’s 14:45 minutes long.

The moral of the story? Be nice. I know being nice can’t be taught in a lesson; it’s modeled. But if I’m asked to teach a family home evening lesson, I might as well keep the boys interested with blood-sucking, -pooping, -vomiting bats.

 

But there’s a second unspoken lesson here—that the existence of altruism, compassion, generosity, kinship, and compassion can be explained very well by natural selection.

Dubious? Read the book.  

This is something neither you, nor I will be able to answer with confidence. I will ask you this, would conducting research on unfertilised eggs and unfertilised sperm, separately, be unethical? Clones are produced from one of the former, combined with the DNA from another body cell, by-passing the natural mode of fertilisation through the union of the gametes. It's a tough question, because if human cloning is executed, it would pose the problem of defining what the rights of the clone would be. As a believer in the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you) as the source of all morality, I would have to empathise with the feelings of this sentient clone and grant him or her the rights I myself enjoy. 

[metmom]

With God out of the picture — with truth and justice out of the picture — all that is left is the dynamic of power. The endgame is the "war of all against all," a lapse into the ideology of "the survival of the fittest."

Note: that's the "fittest"; not the "best." The laser-like focus on the physical eclipses all moral criteria.

Thus man ceases to be man, and finally becomes a "mere" animal....

And when man becomes an animal, he does not opt to be a dove. Rather he becomes a vicious beast, and the natural (and social) world becomes a spectacle of "Nature, red in tooth and claw," to quote Charles Darwin. Some folks evidently find this scenario appealing in some way. I do not for the life of me understand why.

As can be evidenced in the atheistic regimes of the 20th century. Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Kim Jung Il,....

Such is the fruit of atheism.

[James C. Bennett]

Duh James, yet there is a common principle here - both result in a created human life.

Duh, no, Godzilla. You fail to recognise the difference. Cloning involves one gamete and one body cell (somatic cell) whereas normal fertilization involves two gametes. Read, Godzilla, read!

Again - the analogy of the twin is still applicable since they come from the same single cell(s) that then split.

Not if intermediary genetic modification is performed. Then, the "clone" doesn't share the same genetics. I bring this about because this is within the realms of possibility - already done with bacteria spliced with human genes to produce human insulin.

A sperm and egg are joined in a test tube creating a new human - new life, new soul. I see nothing different here. There is no intervention, just an established process James.

Ah, no again, Godzilla. Producing a clone does not involve the fusion of a sperm and egg. Just a somatic (body) cell and a single gamete (sex cell).

I do this to point out the hypocrisy of your strawman because you structure it with the intent to fail.

The isolated tribal is not a strawman. The individual is real, living and breathing, existing even today.

Here's one aiming an arrow at you, Godzilla:

Yet I've already pointed out that there would be no inconsistencies for this clone to have a soul and spirit any more than for a twin to have a soul and spirit too.

See above, Godzilla. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the clone is a product of an unfertilised gamete and a somatic cell, both of which are components you agree you have no ethical issues in performing research with. A twin (identical) is formed when the blastocyst cleaves into two. Although the genetics are similar, they needn't necessarily be so for the clone, which is where the contradiction I point out, arises. Clones are not the same as twins, Godzilla. They usually don't even have comparably similar life-spans. Clones tend to die faster. 

[LeGrande]

I went to your source and picked the very first absolute best Prophecy supposedly of Christs Pre existence. Lets see how the Prophecy stacks up shall we?

Micah

5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Ok someone out of the clan of Bethlehem Ephratah, shall rule Israel. Christ didn't come out of the clan Ephratah and he didn't rule Israel. So far not so good.

5:3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

Hmm did Christ give them until the return of the children of Israel? No. Strike two.

5:4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

Hmm, I don't know. Christ is supposed to be LORD right? Not stand in the name of the LORD his GOD. Another failed prophecy. Strike three.

5:5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

Christ didn't do any of that. I can't believe you embarrass yourself like this GodZ trying to pass this tripe off as a Prophecy of Christ. Strike four.

5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Chris laid waste to Assyria with the Sword? JHC Godzilla did you even look at what the prophecy stated? Nah that would hurt too much. What is that Strike five and you're out?

So much for the perfect word of GOD.

[James C. Bennett]

Pssssssst James - if God created time, then God is powerful enough to control it to his ends.

Pssssst Godzilla, if this deity "created time", then how did it pick a moment to "create time"? With an "earlier" time?

:^)

Truly you have no clue as to what it means for God to be all powerful and knowing - attributes you fail to include in your little thought experiment. You assume God is subject to time.

God being all-powerful doesn't allow God to peform an absurdity, Godzilla. You should know that. Truly you have no clue in understanding that even God has limitations.

Let me share a comment from another thread, to illustrate my point:

To: Tennessee Nana

NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for God Luke 1:37

NOT TRUE. G-d can not lie. G-d can not decieve. G-d can not break His own Torah. G-d can not be immoral.

All of which christianity teaches if you accept A) human sacrifice B) human vicarious atonement C) Replacement of the Law D) etc... 

160 posted on Thu Jun 09 2011 18:31:12 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)

I state that it is the biblical understanding that time is subject to God. Thus there is no paradox involving the creation and eventual replacement of the universe.

Ignoring the inevitability of the absurdity doesn't allow the absurdity to go away, Godzilla.

If God is not subject to time, then God cannot separate God's sequential acts. Is this too hard to understand, Godzilla? Think about it for a while. God doesn't just want time to separate God's actions, but God NEEDS it. Without time separating God's sequential acts, Godzilla, God ends up creating and destroying the Universe, simultaneously. Do you understand this, Godzilla? If you don't, specifically point out the fallacy in this argument.

I repeat, specifically.

 
 

Pssssssst James - if God created time, then God is powerful enough to control it to his ends.

Pssssst Godzilla, if this deity "created time", then how did it pick a moment to "create time"? With an "earlier" time?

:^)

Truly you have no clue as to what it means for God to be all powerful and knowing - attributes you fail to include in your little thought experiment. You assume God is subject to time.

God being all-powerful doesn't allow God to peform an absurdity, Godzilla. You should know that. Truly you have no clue in understanding that even God has limitations.

Let me share a comment from another thread, to illustrate my point:

To: Tennessee Nana

NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for God Luke 1:37

NOT TRUE. G-d can not lie. G-d can not decieve. G-d can not break His own Torah. G-d can not be immoral.

All of which christianity teaches if you accept A) human sacrifice B) human vicarious atonement C) Replacement of the Law D) etc... 

160 posted on Thu Jun 09 2011 18:31:12 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)

NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE for God Luke 1:37

NOT TRUE. G-d can not lie. G-d can not decieve. G-d can not break His own Torah. G-d can not be immoral.

All of which christianity teaches if you accept A) human sacrifice B) human vicarious atonement C) Replacement of the Law D) etc... 

If God is not subject to time, then God cannot separate God's sequential acts. Is this too hard to understand, Godzilla? Think about it for a while. God doesn't just want time to separate God's actions, but God NEEDS it. Without time separating God's sequential acts, Godzilla, God ends up creating and destroying the Universe, simultaneously. Do you understand this, Godzilla? If you don't, specifically point out the fallacy in this argument.

[presently no screen name]

Is Jesus Christ your God? Do you believe he rose from the dead? Is Allah your god?

You think I'm here to play some dumba** game with an atheist? Get a grip - I don't bow to those lower than demons. Agnostics aren't know for their brains - and that idiotic question to get what you want - screams of liberalism. The dumbest of the dumb!

So, I will continue to ask the same questions and take your silence as an indication that you are not a Christian. If anyone has been misleading, it was you with your childish or sneaky refusal to acknowledge what every Christian would gladly answer.

So you admit you are going to continue SPAMMING me w/hellish behavior.

Silence to you /if you don't jump through my hoops, I continue SPAMMING you. I'm not her to fulfill your demands and control and intimidation tactics are from the pit.

I HEAR AND OBEY God's Word as it is the Final Authority......

Matt 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

And this confirms His Word - this is just ONE EXAMPLE your silence as an indication that you are not a Christian. If anyone has been misleading, it was you with your childish or sneaky refusal to acknowledge what every Christian would gladly answer.

[LeGrande]

Do I have the capacity to understand what you are trying to say? You tell me, LG.

I don't know. You missed the point.

There is no question or fear of death. The fear is of the sorrow (or joy as the case might be to some) that my death will cause to those who love me.

This came as quite a revelation to me when I almost died once, I decided to live for their sake.

[LeGrande]

Please can you simply take a look at the referenced Prophecy first to save me a little time, and to keep you from looking silly?

[metmom]

k50: So, I will continue to ask the same questions and take your silence as an indication that you are not a Christian. If anyone has been misleading, it was you with your childish or sneaky refusal to acknowledge what every Christian would gladly answer.

Which is the epitome of stalking, which he is doing by kosta's own admission.

Everyone is well aware of the dumb@$$ games that he and other atheists have played of making accusations and treating them as fact and then DEMANDING that others answer to them.

Christians are only answerable and accountable to God. Not some stalking atheist who doesn't even believe that God exists, much less that Jesus was God Himself.

It is blatant hypocrisy for kosta to rag on anyone about the deity of Christ, the very thing he denies himself.