New guy who believes in God

Those “absolute morals” from a bible god who thinks “incest is best” when it comes to human repopulation. :roll_eyes:


Hey Eli! Sorry you got banned! If you’re reading this I never got a chance to rub your butt. I know how cold it gets during the night. I’m on “” if you want to hook up.

1 Like

The OverLord and I aren’t on speaking terms. He’s still upset that I drank the kava root and came to my senses. :stuck_out_tongue:

See ratty… I have been right all along.

You really are determined to make a spectacle of yourself before a global public audience, aren’t you?

First of all, the fantasy “global flood” never happened. It’s fiction. If you need the requisite spoon feeding, as so many mythology fanboys do, I can provide several cogent reasons why it’s fiction. But I’ll save that for later if need be, along with a nice little surprise that you manifestly never thought of.

Second, even if this fantasy event had happened, your disgusting apologia for mass biocide is precisely that - disgusting. Though enthusiasts for genocidal measures have a habit of resorting to blaming the victims. Apart from the fact that your apologia paints a picture of your cartoon magic man as being a psychotic despot, there’s also the little matter, which you completely failed to address within said disgusting apologia, why billions of plants and animals had to be exterminated as well.

Indeed, given that your goat herder mythology asserts that your cartoon magic man purportedly possesses all sorts of fantastic powers, this necessarily includes the ability to modify behaviour, and indeed your mythology asserts elsewhere that your cartoon magic man engaged in precisely this practice on at least one separate occasion. Which on its own invalidates any apologetic fabrications about “free will” you want to toss into the ring at this point.

As for Frank Turek, he’s a presuppositionalist charlatan, as indeed all presuppositionalists are charlatans.

For that matter, since theology itself is nothing more than the fine art of making shit up, in order to pretend that a cartoon magic man is something other than the product of the rectal passages of piss-stained bronze Age incels, no one here who understands that apposite fact will take your wibblings seriously, except in pursuit of the proper discoursive duty of seeing that bullshit does not pass here unchallenged.

As for this:

this is, of course, total bollocks. Anyone genuinely interested in the question of the origin of a given entity, requires evidence in order to answer that question. That you posted this miasmatic drivel on its own demonstrates your intellectual vacuity and bankruptcy. But I’m aware of how rigour is an alien concept to mythology fanboys.

Fatuous drivel.

Oh wait, we have voluminous amounts of evidence that brick buildings are artefacts constructed by human beings. We’re back again to that word “EVIDENCE”. I don’t think a brick building was built by humans because of nebulous fantasies about “design”, a concept you manifestly know nothing about, but because I have EVIDENCE that human beings construct brick buildings. Indeed, on several occasions I’ve observed this activity being performed by some of the human beings in question.

On the other hand, NO ONE has observed a cartoon magic man magically poofing things into existence.

Furthermore, the mere fact that brick buildings are observably different from the biosphere, renders Paley’s watchmaker bullshit null and void. Not least because brick building are not self-replicating entities, and of course there’s the little matter of how “design” apologetic fabrications duplicitously conflate two entirely different activities. First of all, human design activities have never shared any attributes with supernatural magic poofing. Supernatural magic poofing is asserted by mythology fanboys like you, to involve perfect foreknowledge of the behaviour of parts both in isolation and when integrated. Humans have never had “perfect foreknowledge” of anything.

Indeed, human design activity consists of the following steps:

[1] Try out some ideas;

[2] Discard the failures;

[3] Build upon the successes.

As a corollary, human design activity is far closer to evolution than to supernatural magic poofing, because those three steps above are essentially how evolution works. So on those grounds as well, your apologetic farts fail miserably.

Even worse, pedlars of “design” assertions like you don’t know what is required, to turn those assertions into something other than the products of their rectal passages. “I’m too stupid to understand how testable natural processes could have achieved this, therefore a cartoon magic man did it” is risible excrement. But risible excrement is all I see being offered by mythology fanboys, so no surprises there.

Indeed, the problem of developing a reliable means of detecting “design”, is recognised among actual scientists (as opposed to pedlars of mendacious apologetic fabrications), as being such a sufficiently difficult problem, that any working solution will guarantee the inventor thereof a Nobel Prize. That this hasn’t been awarded for any such work should be telling you something important.

Plus, it’s also telling that you think evolution equates to “chance”, which it doesn’t. What part of “testable natural processes” do you not understand again? Indeed, I exerted much diligent effort explaining several relevant concepts to you in this post, which you manifestly never bothered reading, except for the purpose of apologetic quote mining.

Bare faced lie.

First, over 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers, document in exquisite detail the evidence for evolution. Evidence that includes direct experimental test and validation of evolutionary postulates, and replication of speciation events in the laboratory.

Second, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers from the organic chemistry literature, document in exquisite detail the laboratory experiments establishing that chemical reactions implicated in the origin of life work. Indeed, I’m reminded at this point of this latest piece of research from a japanese laboratory, in which the scientists involved managed to produce self-replicating protocells starting with nothing more sophisticated than a mix of amino acids, thioesters and lipids. The full paper in Nature Communications can be read here.

Oh, and don’t bother quote mining a paper that everyone else can download for free and read in full, you’ll only embarrass yourself here further if you do.

Oh look, Looby Loo thinks he has a “gotcha”. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Already covered life above. Intelligence arises when the need to process external data makes a nervous system a necessity, and if you had paid attention in biology class, you would have learned that there are all manner of different variations on the nervous system them, ranging from that of nematode worms to humans. Indeed, all the scientific evidence amassed to date, points to intelligence being the product of brain chemistry. This includes instances of intelligent behaviour observed in non-human species, which not only have never read your goat herder mythology, but are currently incapable of doing so. As for emotions, we have evidence for these being the product of brin chemistry again, involving such substances as vasopressin and oxytocin.

As for “moral absolutes”, well this presumes that such entities actually exist, a question that even elementary students of philosophical ethics will tell you is an unsolved problem. On the other hand, I am aware that there exists an abundant scientific literature, documenting the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of:

[1] our capacity for ethical thought, and;

[2] the motivation to act thereupon.

This literature covers such topics as:

[1] The evolution of brain development genes expressed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that has been known to be implicated in ethical decision making for over a century, and;

[2] Observed instances of ethical behaviour in non-human species, which again have never read your goat herder mythology and are currently incapable of doing so.

Indeed, the voluminous evidence informing us that behaviour can be altered by interfering with brain chemistry, should on its own be telling you something important,. though it’s probably wasted upon you because you’re too emotionally attached to your imaginary cartoon magic man.

Oh, as for the idea that your cartoon magic man is a “moral entity”, even the assertions of your own goat herder mythology flush this idea down the toilet hard. Not least, the 200-plus pages devoted to gleeful depictions of genocidal Lebensraum wars, which your mythology asserts were either directly ordered by your cartoon magic man (hilariously AFTER the issuing of the supposed “commandment” known as “thou shalt not kill”), or were given silent assent thereby. This includes one hideous instance in which the piss-stained Bronze Age incels that scribbled your mythology, gleefully dwelt upon the matter of kidnapping underage girls as sex slaves, after the unfortunate girls in question were forced to watch their parents being butchered in the genocidal Lebensraum war in question.

Indeed, I’m minded to note that the idea of “morality” that is contained in your goat herder mythology, consists at bottom of “kill all who do not conform”, and is explicitly presented as such in several key passages.

Are you going to exert some effort to make it hard for me in future?


Oh, by the way, Paley’s Watchmaker bullshit is refuted by the history of watchmaking.

With respect to watches, many of these are just so much junk unless there’s a human being around to wind them up.

Indeed, when one traces the history of watches, one finds again a process of gradual development involving trial and error. The first portable clocks were still far too big to be carried in a pocket, let alone worn upon a wrist, and the first such instances of these, back in the 15th century, only had an hour hand. The accuracy of these devices was so low that they were little more than expensive toys for rich people.

It took finite time for watchmakers to learn, for example, that the force delivered by a mainspring is not a constant, and that some means of taking account of this had to be devised, and the first of these, a device known as a stackfreed, was abandoned after about 100 years because of the undesirable friction it introduced into the mechanism. The fusee, a different device, persisted for longer, but was eventually abandoned in the 19th century when a superior solution arose.

The balance spring only appeared in 1657, and the first watches with a minute hand only appeared around 1680 as a result of the development of the balance spring. The verge escapement, which had been used in large pendulum driven clocks since the 13th century, was replaced by the cylinder escapement in 1695 - it took humans three hundred years or so to move on to this better idea.

We had to wait until 1759 for the lever escapement, which, ironically, only made major inroads into Swiss watchmaking around 1900. We had to wait until 1923 for the first successful self-winding system, based upon converting the wearer’s arm motion into rotary motion that kept the mainspring tension constant. The Incabloc shock protection system, to protect jewel bearings from critical failure stresses if the watch was dropped, wasn’t invented until 1934. The first working electrically powered watches did not appear until 1957.

Once again, the history of watches is replete with trial and error, discarding of failures, and building upon successes, and the development of the modern wrist watch bears more resemblance to an evolutionary process than to “magic design”.


Splendid as usual, Cali. But I wouldn’t hold my breath in expecting Cr2187 to provide another “challenge” any time soon. Seems that last post of his was a drive-by. Haven’t seen hide nor hair of him since.

1 Like

I can see why. He knows he can’t demonstrate objective evidence for the existence of a deity nor argue one into existence. His games don’t work here.

He’s stated that “there is lots of evidence for God,” though.

I mean, someone wouldn’t be dishonest enough to flat out make that up, right?

Unless, of course, someone flat out lied to Cr2187 first and he’s just parroting the fabrication without applying any critical thought to the matter.

No, that couldn’t be; only an intellectual child would do such a thing.

1 Like

To me. When you indoctrinate or program someone into a religion, there’s layers and layers of brain washing that go in to it. I’m not surprised he’s mimicking what he’s been told and heard from his parents, fellow cult members, and his minister. I don’t see how anyone can believe in anything without evidence. When someone tells me something truth or a lie I take it with a grain of salt until otherwise. Sooner if there is evidence for or against the claim.

LOL - JWs used this with one step further - throw the separate pieces in a box and shake it. See if you get a watch.

So a better more accurate comparison is taking six ingredients… bread slices :bread: bacon :bacon: tomato :tomato: cheese :cheese: lettuce :leafy_green: turkey :turkey: … throw them in a box. Give say about a billion folks their own box to shake. Yah, someone is getting a clubhouse.

Hi all…I am new here. I have been observing (lurking) for a while to get a gist of the tone and approach of the “family”. I recognize many similarities between some of you and myself. I was raised baptist, baptized, grew up and gave up fantasy-thinking, worked on learning HOW to think, had a family, etc, etc. Currently working on helping my grandchildren learn how to think for themselves.
Respectfully, I have to take exception to connecting religion to mental illness. While it is true that they may co-exist, mental illness is not a requirement for massively delusional thinking. The capacity that human beings have for extreme thinking as well as the manifestations thereof are easily demonstrated through a cursory examination of history, both recent and ancient.
I am somewhat in awe of how patient some of you are with the asinine arguments such as Eli’s. It is as if he/they think that not only do assertions qualify as facts, but also that somehow faith supplants the need or requirement for evidence. The plethora of fallacies becomes absurd at some point. All of you who at least attempt to politely and calmly explain the problems in logic, etc., are to be commended. Those of you who want to slap the shit out of someone to try to get through the muck, are also to be commended, albeit for different reasons…While I share the label of Atheist with you, I do not assume that we will always agree and it is my pleasure to let you know that when we do not agree, try to remember that I am always right…zzz


Welcome! Shhhhiiittttt and here I thought “I’m always right” :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It is my distinct pleasure to correct you on this…

I disagree. I am an atheist and I do not run around murdering and raping. In fact I prefer the opposite in helping my neighbors.

This is one of the massive injustices such as christianity does to people, it degrades them. From the instant of our birth to after we die we are sinners, bad people, inferior, doomed to a life of sin. I disagree. We are all human and we all make mistakes. Some lean towards being more selfish that others, others the opposite.


Welcome to Atheist Republic skriten.

We’re all right, that is why popcorn sales have spiked.

Yeah David I have to agree here. Being told over and over that we are all born in sin and subject to moral failure on a regular basis certainly sets the bar rather low for acceptable behavior. It would seem obvious that instructing children (and adults) in fundamentals of human behavior would provide a much more stable foundation for developing a beneficent, empathetic, accepting, tolerant, caring personality than pre-loading minds with self doubt and self-loathing. If you grow up (like I did) being told you are doomed to be a sinner, then of course you would welcome a “savior”. This poisoning of minds was also used against Indigenous Americans by destroying their lives and livings and then proclaiming that “Our God can deliver you from your suffering and misery”. Sorrowfully, for many Natives the message hit home and was accepted as truth in the face of annihilation or complete loss of culture.

Thanks…for the popcorn

1 Like

Delusional disorder is an illness characterized by at least 1 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms, according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5 ). [[1](javascript:void(0);)] Delusions are false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary;
NOW: With that said, and likely because the USA is 80% Christian. The DSM5 tacks on this last little sentence. "these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture." So, if everyone in a culture is delusional, it is not actually 'delusional." Does that really make any sense at all?

Reminds me of the Buddhist story of, “The Kind King.” He lived in a castle on a high hill and was renowned for his kindness throughout the kingdom. He was loved by his subjects and he loved them and always treated everyone fairly.

One day an evil witch came into the village and poisoned the water in the well. When the people of the village drank the water, they became crazy and they began to hate their king. They fought in the streets and shouted profanities to the castle walls.

The kind King, wondering why all the people of the town had turned against him, decided to go to the town and talk to the people. Surely he would be able to fix this misunderstanding.

He mounted his horse and headed into the town. The ride down the mountain was hot. As he entered the town all the people were hiding. The kind King would see a door slam or someone moving a curtain aside to peek out a window.

Coming to a halt in front of the town well, the King was hot and thirsty so he decided to draw a cup of water. He dipped his cup into the bucket and took a long drink of the poisoned water. At that moment the people rejoiced and came running from their homes. All was right in the world once again, the kind king had returned.

The Christian version of delusion is primarily of two types and this earns them a diagnosis of “Mixed Delusions.” Persecutory* (i.e., belief that one is going to be harmed by an individual, organization, or group) *or magical being if they don’t do what they are told. Or by the evil Satan monster who waits for them around every corner and causes them to do bad things. *** grandiose (i.e., belief that the individual has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame), Like they have direct access to and can communicate with the all-powerful God and creator of the universe. The only real god, by the way. I suppose I could make an argument for " erotomanic, delusions as well. (i.e., a false belief that another individual is in love with him/her), After all, Jesus Loves Them And this is asserted even though he promised them that he did not come to bring peace but a sword and that he plans to rip families apart and that most of them are going to hell anyway. Okay, one more delusional possibility. Should I go back and change the number to 4. Not every Christian hits every mark. Only 2 are required for the diagnosis. This is the last type of delusion the Christians may exhibit; *** “nihilistic:” (i.e., a conviction that a major catastrophe will occur), Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, pestelance, murder in the streets, rape, the wrath of God, fire from the sky, and a Holy Rapture that will destroy all heathen and elevate the Christian population to be one with their magical sky daddy in the clouds.

Yep, ethically and legally we are not allowed to connect the dots. But I gotta tell you, the correlation here is fucking amazing. LOL!

You’re going to fit in around here just great. Welcome to the site.

1 Like

See? Therein lies the problem. Because if YOU disagree with ME, there is no possible way I can be wrong. Meaning, it is obvious you can’t always be right. If you do happen to agree with me, however, then OF COURSE you will always be right, and your statement will retain its truth. See how easy that is?

1 Like