Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Another TrueChristian(tm) steps up, part 2

(Since I had it done, here it is. Part 1 is here.)

Part 2

I had not heard about the “dane’s kings list going back to Noah”.  I wonder do you know of the list of Japanese emperors that goes back to the goddess Amaterasu and further back to Izanagi and Inzanami?  I didn’t think so.  So you see, anyone can make up a list that declares that they came from magical divine origins and by your “reasoning” those list simply must be true with no further thought put to the problem.  There is a list of kings from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that says that one of the germanic kings, Sceafa (also spelled Scef or Sceaf) was one of Noah’s sons, but golly the bible doesn’t mention it.  We also have other versions of these northern tribal geneaologies that claim decent from Woden/Odin/Gautr.  Why then Thor must exist! 

The only X-O3b that I know of is an extrasolar planet that is in orbit around a star in the constellation Camelopardalis (in the Southern Hemisphere) You see, I rather like astronomy too.  It’s quite a bright star and the planet may indeed be more a brown dwarf star than planet like Jupiter, but the distinction between the brown dwarfs and Jovian planets are fairly small.

Bible codes are all just some of the funniest nonsense I’ve seen. There even better than the rants about a flat earth and Queen Elizabeth being a reptiloid.  It’s kind of sad but hilarious to watch Christians try to declare that they are such special snowflakes, by declaring that they’ve found a “code” in their bible, the same bibles that they pick and choose from, declare translations are bad when convenient, etc.  What’s even better is that none of  their claims of predictions from this bible have ever been presented before an actual event and were proven accurate. Nope, all of them come out after an event, with the desperate theist saying “see, see, I found it”  after the fact.  It’s just poor people trying to revise history and a rather pitiful way to do it when it’s so obvious they are cheating.  Why, Woody, I can do the same thing with any book if I make up a method and claim to predict an event that already happened in the most  vague way possible. Here’s your special method right here.  It’s just as silly as the rest.

As you said, Woody, most of these are typical; typical nonsense spread by believers created in their desperate attempts to find *any* evidence, any at all for their god since these believers are not satisfied with simple faith.  They need to claim that their beliefs are rooted in reality, but in their desperation, they cease to think critically and we see the result.

I do reject religion because they are all much the same and they all have no evidence for their gods or essential events.  If you might recall, there are Christians who do accept evolutionary theory, but as always I’m sure you will claim they are not TrueChristianstm.  I do not give other religions a pass and Woody, claiming that I do shows that you lie willingly and you lie from a base of willful ignorance.  Any short internet search will find the same criticism leveled at Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Jainism (by myself) etc. At Jesus and Mo, we have ridicule of both Christianity and Islam at once! I know that these facts do damage your need to believe you are some kind of a martyr, but alas for you, it isn’t true and only makes you look like you have no interest in following your god when it commands “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.”   I have looked truth in the eye, and a scholar and as a lady (really, “gentleman”? OH yes, you can’t possibly think a woman would tell you that you are wrong, eh?)  and I have seen that your claims of truth are built on lies, willful ignorance and using long superseded information.   I seek the truth and it does not mean one man’s version of one god from one sect of one religion that has nothing to support it.  You don’t even agree with your fellow Christians and you have no more evidence you are right than the next theist.  Studying myths for 4 years, or 400 will not make them true if you cannot present any evidence that they are true.  Oh and the word “proven” isn’t “broad” at all. Sorry, Woody, but trying to redefine a word is just one more Christian tactic to try to excuse their failings.  To prove something isn’t hard, if one has the evidence.  If you are indeed taking economics, one might assume that you are in either high school or college.  That means at some point you will be required to think critically or you’ll fail.  Now, I ask you to apply that critical thinking to your religion.  Don’t fall victim to the desire to compartmentalize your religion from everything else you doubt and think about.

As for the “Armory”, no, Woody, I don’t watch videos gathered up and repeated by Christians unless I’m really really bored because they say nothing more than what I’ve read.  I see you’ve used a typical weasel word, “seriously”, so you can make up more excuses if you want by claiming I didn’t watch them “seriously enough” e.g. came to the same conclusions you did.  In case you need more of those weasel words, others often used are “humbly”, “honestly”, “sincerely”.  They’re all equally amusing.

I expect Christians to make their own arguments, not hide behind the skirts of someone else in their cowardice.  I have found that many Christians don’t even understand the arguments they claim are so “very good”, just like I’ve found that many *many* Christians have never read their own bible in its entirety.  Your website is a font of KJV onlyists, something that none of you have been able to prove as true, that your favorite bible and only that bible is the “true” one.  So again, make your own arguments if you think they are valid.

This has to be one of the most quote-worthy bits I’ve seen in a long time from a creationist:

 “And if you get to concerned with INFORMATION you will become spiritually worthless and bitter.”

Also known as an attempt to frighten and bully people by trying to get them to obey. It’s pretty much: “If you think about this, you’ll realize that Woody is a liar.  So better to remain willfully ignorant and allow him his delusions.”  You also claim that one needs to pray to your god to get answers. Well, I did when I was a believer and when I was losing my faith.  Since I got bupkis, we have only a few possibilities, your god likes me just like I am, your god isn’t anything like you claim or your god doesn’t exist.  Now, cue the claims that I didn’t pray in the “right” way.  I do also like how you insist that you need to defend your god.  Poor thing, it can’t defend itself and has to rely on someone like you?  Oy, I see its problems already.

Saving the best until last, I see you cite Kent Hovind.  It’s so amusing when Christians claim that people who have never even tried to get a degree in something are now experts in it.  I wonder, do you take your car to a pediatrician or yourself to car mechanic for medical treatment.  And Kent is such a good Christian, lying and cheating about his taxes.  Hmmm, seems that he doesn’t remember these bits from the bible: Matthew 22:17-22, Romans 13:1-7, Exodus 20:16  Hovind seems to think he can pick and choose from his bible too, unsurprisingly.  You can see his very entertaining but utterly false claims addressed here.  Poor Kent, has no idea how hydrology and hydrogeology work. Poor guy, even other creationists think he’s nuts when it comes to the flood and his version of creation.

Now, I’m still waiting for that one thing I’ve asked you for, Woody. 

Postscript – to all of the theists who are going “geez, at least I’m not that crazy”, I’d agree, you probably aren’t. But you do have some of the same beliefs all without evidence like Woody.  Don’t feel too smug.


27 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Another TrueChristian(tm) steps up, part 2

  1. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Another TrueChristian(tm) steps up, Part 1 | Club Schadenfreude

  2. It’s pointless to say something doesn’t exists because it cannot be proven scientifically. A lot of things could not be proven 200 years ago, but now can, so does that mean that those things that could not be proven 200 years ago didn’t exist, or don’t exist?

    The other side quotes the bible – a book written by humans thousands of years ago with their own very human political / spiritual / whatever agendas.

    Both sides accuse each other of using their respective argument to justify their way of thinking. Too friggin funny. It’s like watching two bulls in rut butting their heads oblivious to the fact that some other dude is humping the cow.

    Believe however you choose to, but please check your egos at the door because THAT is what is the cause of so much misery.

    • Emilio, that’s just special pleading for the supernatural and is very transparent. Yes a lot of things could not be proven 200 years ago to exist. But as we have learned, we have created ways to find those things, like atoms, bacteria, viruses, quantum particles. Just because someone can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However, we did know that there were the effects of viruses, atoms, quantum particles, etc. So we followed the evidence and found the source. That’s what the scientific method is. The problem with the supernatural and the various gods is that we have no evidence that they exist at all, so we cannot do the same to find the source. People have been looking for millenia and still nothing. Yes, one can postulate that maybe, some unknown day in the future, we will find these gods, ghoulies, ghosties, long-legged beasties adn things that go bump in the night. How long must we wait until someone like you finally admits they aren’t there and for all of the attributes you give these magical things, nothing fits them and nothing can be detected about them? For instance, we have those ridiculous ghost hunting shows on TV. They claim that ghosts can move things, make interferences with electro-magnetics, make cold spots, etc. Those are all testable events and none of these nitwits is willing to have a real experiment done. No, they wander around scaring each other in dark buildings.

      You want to say “but but both sides are the same”. That is accomodationist/apologetic nonsense and golly doesn’t that make you feel superior to everyone? 🙂 How expected and I do enjoy accusations of “ego” with your confidence that you and only you have the “right” answer. Indeed, it is “too friggin funny.” You conveniently ignore that I am not quoting a book of baseless myth, I am demanding evidence that should be easy to find with all the claims theists make.

      • Er no. I never said i had the right answer. What i said was rather than butting heads about who is right, understand how destructive ego is because that is what can, and does, cause so much misery. And you can come to this conclusion whether you are religious / spiritual or not.

        As far as science goes: I have nothing against it, however it is only a method to test things with the scientific knowledge that they use today. Tomorrows science will expand on what we know today, or will prove other things we don’t know today. So to say that “the super natural” doesn’t exist is short sighted. I agree, today there is no way to prove it, but how do you know where science may go in 10 years time?

        There a lot of inventions that were regarded as science fiction in their day, but are a fact today.

      • Here’s another similarity between you and Jesus happy Christians. When one doesn’t “admit” to their way of thinking as being correct, they either spew hate from their mouths, or they try to belittle the person that has a different view.

        A hypothetical question for you: why is it so important to you that I (and I assume others) admit to something you believe in? You looking for justification?

      • Emilio, I have to shoot you in the foot here. You’re out in some la la land and it’s time to come home. Perhaps you should follow club’s thread here back to the blog where these (reply) posts originated and you might get a better picture.
        To your definition of science, you’re just wrong. Empiricism is the strict measurement of observable stimuli, yet the vast majority of theoretical science is based on inference from observed data. Dark Matter being perhaps the best example around today, Evolution the Grand Daddy of them all. Just as Darwin inferred the presence of natural selection from his observations (which have since been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt) so too Dark Matter is inferred by observable facts like galaxies not spinning themselves apart. You see the difference here? Theoretical science arrives at the notion something ‘must’ exist (which cannot be presently tested) derived from observed inference. You seem to be defending dogmatic religious zealots who base their claims on the existence of some magical sky fairy on one provably flawed source: a sand manual dreamed up by illiterate goat herders. My problem with these folk (the reason why I and club and many more engage their lunacy) is they interfere in society and that must be stopped. They are a cancer on our societies, and like all cancers it must be cut out. If you’ve missed that point then you’re not too bright. Sorry, but it’s a pretty big point to miss.

      • Emilio, Your protestattions are amusing but I really dont’ care about your opinions on ego. Again, you have nothing to suppor them. You try to claim false equivalencies and insist that you have the only right answer. And yes, you do this, since you insist everyone else is *wrong*. I don’t go for someone who tries to lie about what they’ve said and who have done so quite ineptly. Right here is your gloating that you are so wise and know ever so much: “Both sides accuse each other of using their respective argument to justify their way of thinking. Too friggin funny. It’s like watching two bulls in rut butting their heads oblivious to the fact that some other dude is humping the cow.”

        At least have the courage to own up to what you’ve said.

        I also am amused at one more “I like science but” bit of nonsense. The scientific method should work on anything *if* the claims of how these supernatural things work are valid. It comes down to the fact that you can’t claim something affects the real world and then claim that it can’t be sensed by real world methods.

        All your claim ends up being is “I want to believe in spooks so I’m going to claim that some indefinite time in the future I’ll be proven right”, all without any evidence that anything that you claim is even remotely possible, not even one step has gone that way. We’ve been going how long? Several millenia and none of the gods, ghoulies and ghosties have even been remotely shown to have a chance of being real. No faith healing, no ghosts, no reptiloids, no prayer, no spells, no prediction of the future accurately, no miracles, nothing. I know a lot of the history of supernatural claims and they fail every single time.

        It’s also cute to see you leveling even more baseless claims and claiming that since we don’t agree with you, we simply must “hate” you. No, dear wannabee martyr, you have been told you are wrong. If you think being told you’re wrong and that being backed up with evidence is “hate”, then golly, everyone who ever said “Johnny dear, you got the math question wrong” must hate you too. I am indeed ridiculing your claims since they fail and no matter what evidence you are show, you stubbornly and ignorantly cling to them. You have not earned anyone’s respect with your baseless claims and they are indeed not important since I would treat someone who claimed Santa Claus is real in the exact same way.

        I am not insisting that you admit to something I believe in. Remain ignorant if you wish. I am telling you that the facts show that you are wrong and that makes you look silly when you cling to things that are imaginary. Let’s look at this: “A hypothetical question for you: why is it so important to you that I (and I assume others) admit to something you believe in? You looking for justification?”

        I could ask you the same thing. Why are you insisting that supernatural things exist and wanting me to agree with your claim that lacks any support? Are you looking for validation?

        Reality is a bitch when it comes to someone who wants to believe in something that has no evidence to support it.

    • If i may poke my head in… Emilio, are you suggesting some evidence for a god will be found? Are you suggesting there’s even the slightest whiff of a clue? A hint? Rationalism has never killed anyone. Religion has. One is on the right side of history. The other is not.

      • I have no idea John – and that is my point. And i agree with you, Religion has caused more misery than anything else. Don’t jump to conclusions that i am religious because you are seriously wrong.

      • So, you claim to not be “religious”. I’ve seen theist claim that too. They don’t like the term since they’ve shat on it with their actions and made it have negative connotations. Let me ask you straight out: do you believe/worship any gods?

        “Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?”

        Bonus points if anyone can tell me where that last question comes from? And no google cheating 🙂

  3. Club, you must dump all this into a book. I’m not blowing wind up your skirt, i’m serious. You are by far the sharpest knife in the draw i’ve come across. Tell me you’ll do it and i’ll give you the details of a great online (ebook) typesetter with all the ISBN’s you’ll need. Editors (me included) you have in abundance to help where necessary.

      • Can’t say i have… I’ll check it out now.

        I agree the ‘book’ thing has been done and that road traveled. That’s not to say a conversational book like the posts/comments/replies here has been done. You know as well as i do many atheists are active online and we’ve all fought our little battles… and wished later we’d done better, said this, said that. If i were you i’d focus on just a number of posts where you engage someone specifically like Woody here, Prayson there, or even batshit crazy Roy. A chapter then unfolds around that exchange and the theist becomes the character of that chapter. The story unfolds through the comments, and the information comes out naturally as the conversation rolls.

      • You can thank my one geology professor. All of our tests were essay tests, so I had to get good communicating concepts like “environments of deposition: concisely and clearly to pass his tests. His finals was him giving us 20 topics and then him selecting three of them for us to write about. I suffered then but it was worth it.

      • Interesting. In my architecture class, the main coursework was class presentations. I had to be able to sell my project to not less than 3 lecturers and defend it well too.
        As for writing, I didn’t particularly like writing essays but enjoyed doing the research work.

  4. Unlike you I have never “shat” on anyone. I read various books about religion, spirituality, mysticism, philosophy, science, Kermit the Frog and Piggy in the Sky. I absorb said knowledge, think about it, evaluate it, and then form my own opinions. I do not need you, religion, or science, to tell me what I should think.

    What I believe is that if Neanderthal man thought like you we would still live in caves and see a rock as a weapon and nothing else. You are just a follower with no imagination and neither do you posses the capability to form your own thoughts. Go follow. And leave the thinking to others.

    • Oh, so do tell where I’ve “shat” on someone. Let me guess, you think I’ve shat on you since I’ve shown your claims to be garbage. If that’s your defintion, then I’m sure it isn’t first time you’ve been shat on. I await your claims eagerly.

      I’ve read a lot of books too about all of those topics. So? I read them thought about them, evaluated them by comparing them to reality and now know what they claim and what parts are valid and what parts aren’t. And I do love personal attacks when you have nothing else, Emilio. My my, Kermit and Piggy? Tsk.

      No one is trying to tell you how to think, Emilio. However, I am having a good time showing how you are wrong. Please do insist that nothing informs you on how to think except your very special self. I would, as I do to theists, tell you that you are a bit of a hypocrite when you benefit from science but attack it as soon as it shows your personal beliefs wrong.

      So you believe that if Neanderthals thought like I do, we’d still be in caves. Well, Em, please do tell me how I think. Show me where I only see a figurative “rock” as a “weapon” and nothing else. Who am I following, Em? Let me guess, those mean ol’ people who actually can show evidence their their positions? And please do show me how I have no imagination. I have plenty, but I don’t make believe what I can imagine is real just because I hope real hard and hold my breath. I can form my own thoughts quite well, thank you very much, which makes you wrong again and now just telling lies as personal attacks.

      I’m guessing you are feeling hurt since I’m one more person who doesn’t give you the external validation you crave. That’s too bad.

      • Ah, more personal attacks. And of course you can’t back up this one nor those you’ve made before. I’m glad to find that’s all you have, Emilio. It’s easy to make up lies and claim someone is throwing a tantrum but not be able to prove it. That’s all you have to salve to salve your wounded pride. You have gone from claiming that atheists and theists are so much less wise than you to this. It was expected.

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s