Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – 7 responses to common Christian nonsense

I stole this list from Bruce Gerenscer, a wonderful atheist who used to be an evangelical pastor.  Do read his blog.  I added my usual short and sweet responses.  Nothing new, but if you want to cut and past them, you are more than welcome.  Most can be used for any type of theist.

  1. I’ll Pray for You

“Oh that’s nice.  So, what are you praying for? I do need to know so I can give you reports on how well you are doing. ”

If they own up to what they are praying for:  “Hmmm, okay, so how long should that take?   And if nothing happens, what can I put you down for as why:  your god doesn’t consider you a Christian and thus won’t answer your prayers as it promises; your god loves an honest atheist and is fine with me; your god doesn’t exist?”

  1. Have You Ever Heard the Gospel?

“Why yes, I used to be a Christian and I’ve read the bible in its entirety as a Christian and as not. Now, do tell me what your magic decoder ring is that tells you what is to be taken literally and what is to be claimed as metaphor or simply ignored since it is inconvenient and how do you know that it is better than the magic decoder ring that your fellow Christians have?”

3. God Laid You on My Heart

“God did what to you?   Oh, you’re claiming that your god told you to bother me.  Nah, that’s just you needing external validation and you think I’d be a prize to be won to make yourself feel better.”

  1. God is Trying to Get Your Attention

“What, with you?  You’re the best representative this god has? Such a shame.  How about if this god pays attention to those dying of hunger, who suffer from amputations, etc.  He can help them.  I don’t need it.  But it’s easier for you to lie and claim your god is interested in me rather than it doing something.  Oh and claiming that misery is this god’s actions to force people to worship it?  I sure as fuck won’t worship some vicious asshole like that.” 

  1. You’ll Go to Hell if You Don’t Accept Jesus

“Umm, which hell?  Christians don’t’ agree on what it is or even if it exists.  Your sadistic fantasies don’t bother me. Oh, it isn’t *your* fantasies, it’s just what this god needs?  Nice “I am only following orders” excuse, my dear.”

  1. I Know the Holy Spirit is Speaking to You

“Really?  What is it saying?  I do know that Christians all claim that the ol’ HS is speaking to them, but funny how it always give everyone a different message.”

  1. Do You Want Your Children or Grandchildren to Grow Up Without Knowing God and Having No Morals?

“Yup, I do, if they are your morals.  Sorry, dear, I don’t react well to attempts at engendering fear for someone’s imaginary friend.  Pity that Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants.  You just get back to me when you can do what the bible promises every baptized believer in Christ as personal savior can do.

addendum:  always curious when Christians like e.g. “to feel attraction toward or take pleasure in; enjoy” my posts.

36 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – 7 responses to common Christian nonsense

  1. Some of this stuff is absurd. Some of it is the kind of thing that should never be said, but some of it is just disgusting. Being afraid of “God” throwing one in hell is no greater virtue than being afraid of the Soviet Gulag or ISIS or whatever it is. How is it better to “believe in Jesus” for fear of being tortured after death than it is to deny Him for fear of being tortured before death? Obviously, I’m not asking you. I just wish people would stop spreading fear. I hope for this fear to someday be brought to an end, completely.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Raina! Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

      Christianity is about spreading fear. it depends on fear of this god to cause obedience. That’s largely all Revelation is and we have JC himself ginning up the specter of hell to cause people to believe. “40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!”

      Earlier in that chapter, it has JC admitting that he/God have intentionally kept some people from being able to accept it, destroying free will, and damning people for no fault of their own. and earlier in the book we have “28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

      and later “45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

      The other gospels chime in “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” Mark 9

      Fear of hell is what the bible depends on. There is no justice with finite actions being punished eternally.

      You’ve claimed this before: “I don’t think this world is all there is, but my notion of Justice isn’t throwing unbelievers into the fiery hell forever and ever. It might constitute in letting those who defend or commit atrocities suffer a “fiery hell” of “This is what you would do or have done to others” until they can see how evil and bad that is and want to change: want to love and do justice.”

      your bible has little to do with what you want to believe. You’ve also written this “Someone once asked me why God doesn’t make His existence hopelessly obvious to everyone, and I think this is why: God want humans to have the choice to believe in Him or not to believe in Him, to accept Him, or to reject Him.”

      again, your bible say entirely the opposite. “18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.” Romans 9

      “20 For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.” Joshua 11

      “16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. ” John 15

      “10 Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.”

      I know you pick and choose what you want from the bible. You can do that and I have no problem in pointing that out. Each Christian makes their religion in their own image. Happily, yours is nicer than most; but no more true.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The Bible says lots of things, many of them contradictory, and of course I believe some and not others, so feel more than free to point that out 🙂 (Though it’s picking and choosing more by accident than purpose, since while I quote from the Bible a lot since it’s accepted and looked to by many people, I quote from other people and works also and, in many ways, the Bible is no more important to me than many other works, and is not the source of my beliefs, though some parts of it may be supplementary).

        By the way, how do you know that nicer things aren’t truer than nastier things? That’s a crude way of putting what may be my core assumption/belief about reality, and a very important element in how I’ve come to believe what I do, and you don’t have to believe it, but how do you know it’s false?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, I know you believe some parts and not others. The question is why, other than your personal preference? So, it appears that you have a very syncretic religion, not Christianity not Buddhism, etc.
        Your core assumption of reality appears to be that everything that you consider “nice” is what is real/true and the rest is not? Is that what you are saying? I’d like to clarify before I continue.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. That’s a crude & simplisitc way of putting it, but, yes, my core assumption of reality is that, ultimately, what’s good or “nice” is true and what’s bad or “nasty” is not. This gets complicated to put into words nicely (it may be an illusion I keep for myself, but I prefer novels since it seems to me at least that I communicate my ideas with more subtlety/precision through the medium of a story that expresses what I mean, than through talking about it in the abstract, so just letting you know – what I say here is, in my own opinion, rather badly done) since it sounds too readily like I’m saying that people’s experiences of pain, misery, sorrow, or horror are unreal or don’t matter, but what I’m saying is, while those experiences feel very real (what does it mean for an experience to be real?), it is my belief that they are based on illusion and/or incomplete experience or understanding of reality. What is best is always true, ultimately at least.


      4. it does sound *exactly* that you are saying that people’s experiences of the “bad” don’t matter. It also sounds like you are saying that only you “really” understand the universe and the rest only suffer because they don’t agree with you.

        To assume what you think is best is the only truth is rather blind.

        Baring hallucinations, which can be checked out by talking about them to someone else to compare reality, I’m quite sure what I experience is real and affects me.

        I wonder if you’ve ever had something really bad happen do you, Raina. I can happily say I’ve not. But I don’t think that people who have bad things are at fault for some “misunderstanding” of the universe. That stinks of blaming the victim to me.


      5. I don’t think any of us truly understand the universe, and I don’t think evil isn’t real in that sense. I don’t think that a child is at fault for being raped, or a father for not being able to feed his family or … anything of that sort. I don’t think people only suffer because they don’t agree with me, and I don’t assume that only what I think is best is the truth. I think the real Best is the Truth, and that I know that Best imperfectly; I think the truth is better than the best I know.

        To put it another way, there’s an idea that suffering arises from existence; that in order to be released from suffering one must forego all attachments and desires and identity. What I’m suggesting is something somewhat different: that suffering and evil occur because the world is not yet fully made, as it were; because, as a whole, what is is not yet fully aware of what it is and desires. It’s hard to explain, but in my “philosophy of reality” there isn’t really room for blame at all (this is something I struggle to explain to Christians too; many of them are thinking about sin and blame and merit and guilt, and that’s not what I’m talking about at all). So what I’m trying to say isn’t that pain doesn’t hurt, or that atrocities aren’t evil, but that …

        Perhaps the mention of hallucination is key to this. I don’t mean pain is a hallucination – for that matter, a “hallucination” is not, with regards to this thought of mine, necessarily of any less account than an experience in the same physical world which we all share and subject to verification by others. I suspect not all hallucinations are equal, but I am not at all sure that certain horrors are necessarily less horrible to experience because the experience cannot be verified by others on this earth. And I most definitely, DEFINITELY do not think that people who have bad things happen to them are at fault to misunderstanding the universe, and that is why the bad thing happened to them. I think none of us yet fully understand the universe, and that includes myself, and it is not half-way obvious that people who have bad things happen to them understand the universe less than others. The opposite may, in fact, be true.

        No, to me all the horror and evil in this world only… no, it doesn’t make me more certain, but it brings out my certainty that it can’t be the real story. That whatever I suffer, whatever others suffer (and my anger at the sufferings of those who seem to me to be the most innocent of human beings brings this out most), the horror and grief and atrocity can’t be final… can’t really be real. It must be remedied, cured, fixed. That’s my belief … not that those who suffer horrible things are at fault for it.

        Recall, in the Christian story, the most innocent one of all suffered the worst of all: and rose from the dead. That is what draws me, and it is certainly not victim-blaming to say that the innocent may suffer more than the guilty. But I believe that the suffering is not the whole story: that all the best that we desire (that of which the deprivation or contradiction constitutes our suffering)shall be true.


      6. I’ll address the rest later. However, this is interesting me: “Recall, in the Christian story, the most innocent one of all suffered the worst of all: and rose from the dead. That is what draws me, and it is certainly not victim-blaming to say that the innocent may suffer more than the guilty. But I believe that the suffering is not the whole story: that all the best that we desire (that of which the deprivation or contradiction constitutes our suffering)shall be true.”

        In the Christian story, a god declared that it needed a blood sacrifice to offer salvation from punishment that it decreed for every human because of two humans that this god exposed to evil by either intent or stupidity, when they had no idea what good and evil were,

        And to you really think being cruxified is worse than starving to death? Having your limbs blown off? Christ had an inconvenient weekend.


      7. You are working entirely off a Western notion of merit and guilt which is not by any means the one and only predominant understanding of Redemption in Christianity. See this Pascha song from another tradition:

        “Christ is risen from the dead, having trampled down death by death, and upon those in the tombs life bestowing.”

        Judging Christianity as a whole by the peculiar twist given it in the Western world is entirely unfair. There is an entirely different notion of sin and redemption in other Christian traditions, which is at least equally ancient.

        As for your last paragraph… that wasn’t my point. I’m not judging the extremity of various tortures one way or the other (for one, it probably depends on the person; people spend far too much time comparing and judging one experience against another). The point is that the idea in the Christian story is that the Innocent One took on Himself the consequences of the Fall and suffered for all of us (this is the same either in the West or in the Eastern or Oriental traditions (though, as I said, the Western tradition focuses on wrath and law and a trade of merit and guilt, whereas the Eastern tradition focuses rather on healing and union and on the conquest of death). Crucifixion has (at least in the context of the era in which the Romans were using it) the idea and symbolism of the most excruciating and humiliating death. The idea is that Christ suffered that for us; that He became man to heal us through suffering for us. It’s not about what ‘death’ is worst in some general sense, which, as I said above, I think isn’t even a thing, and certainly isn’t something I would think about or decide.


      8. “You are working entirely off a Western notion of merit and guilt which is not by any means the one and only predominant understanding of Redemption in Christianity. See this Pascha song from another tradition:

        “Christ is risen from the dead, having trampled down death by death, and upon those in the tombs life bestowing.”

        Judging Christianity as a whole by the peculiar twist given it in the Western world is entirely unfair. There is an entirely different notion of sin and redemption in other Christian traditions, which is at least equally ancient.”

        show these traditions. and do explain how guilt and redemption aren’t in that quote you’ve made. What do you think it is saying?


      9. I didn’t say redemption was not in the quote I have made. I said it was an ‘entirely different notion of sin and redemption.’ There is definitely resurrection in that quote, but there is no mention of guilt and merit. It is saying that DEATH has been defeated, not that GUILT has been imputed to an innocent party and righteousness to a guilty one.

        I will get back to you with links and suggestions for seeing something of the other traditions, but right now I don’t have a lot of time, so you’ll have to wait for me to compile that.


      10. But I will give you two other WordPress sites that talk about the Western tradition versus the Eastern (and sometimes Oriental) traditions. I don’t vouch for everything on them, and I don’t have time to look for the best articles, but they might provide a starting point. (there are a fair number of articles on this site that provide quotations and delving thoughts into relatively early Christian authors on redemption and sin, but I don’t keep them all as links somewhere, so it would take me more time than I have now to send you directly to the best ones).

        There’s also this one, which is by a Coptic Christian.

        As I said, I haven’t read all of everything here, but none of these sites are books you would have to purchase, and it would take me some time to make a compilation of posts and articles proving the ancient-ness of ancient traditions and beliefs, but if you want me to try to do that, I can try… but not right now. I don’t have the time for it this moment.


      11. “Judging Christianity as a whole by the peculiar twist given it in the Western world is entirely unfair. There is an entirely different notion of sin and redemption in other Christian traditions, which is at least equally ancient.”

        you’ve underlined my points where Christians, including you, just make up this nonsense. Yep, there are entirely different notions of sin and redemption and none of you have any evidene your version is the right one.


      12. Wait a minute. When did I ever say anything about evidence, one way or another? My point with “peculiar” was to underline simply that it is not the one predominant Christian tradition.


      13. Raina, I know discussing this with me makes you distressed. However, take a moment and read what I’ve posted rather than hurrying on.

        Christianity is built on guilt, of sin, and for supposedly requiring someone to die for you, and redemption, aka salvation, by that death.

        Every Christian tradition claims it is the most “true” to the original, but none of them can show this. Even if a tradition is old, we have nothing to show that it was what JC taught. We know this since we see the tradition and claims of what this god “really” wants change over time, from the earliest versions. There is no “original” anyone can point to.


      14. Discussing this with you doesn’t really make me distressed. I’ve just got a lot going on, and thus not a lot of time for every different internet connection/conversation I have. I am finding it a little frustrating that you keep on thinking I’m trying to use certain “facts” or “arguments” to prove my position, but I understand I can’t fault you for that, since many Apologists will use very similar “facts” or “arguments” to attempt to prove their position, so it might take some time to understand my approach is very different.

        I did not bring up the Eastern traditions and their age as an attempt to prove that those traditions’ view of Redemption is more true than the dominant Western view. I do not think Age or Majority proves Truth. I merely think that if Idea A was held in conjunction with Idea B, which is contrary to Idea C, before Idea A was ever held in conjunction with Idea C, it is unreasonable to equate Idea A with Idea C. Thus, I brought up the Eastern traditions simply because when I say, “Jesus rose from the dead,” I want you to stop hearing, “God was angry because someone offended His ‘honour’, and so he arbitrarily demanded to torture and kill someone.” The antiquity of the Eastern view is not proof that it is true, OR that Jesus rose from the dead; it is merely proof that the belief that “Jesus rose from the dead” is not equivalent to the Western view of Redemption/Salvation.

        Now, I will address your middle paragraph, but, please, make sure you understand the previous paragraph before you tackle what follows.

        There is, throughout all the traditions, a great deal of emphasis on guilt (as well as self-examination) something that always offended me. Keep in mind that what I am about to do is not attempt to prove that my view is true; I am simply trying to show that my view is internally consistent, which is not the same as a proof of its truth.

        It is my opinion that, guilt being a method through which people attempt to control each other, everytime anything of a religious substance becomes large or organized, people who want to control each other infiltrate it and introduce a system of controlling guilt. This may occur by degrees. However, the idea of something being wrong with humanity and with this world and with salvation from death through death and resurrection does not, in & of itself, require a framework of such guilt. That there is something wrong, I do not think anyone will deny; that we grieve when we lose someone we love; that we grieve when someone we love suffers; that there is a great deal of suffering in this world, and that many human beings contribute to more of it by being unkind, unfair, denying or not considering the needs of others, or even by downright and intentional cruelty and neglect, knowingly using others for their own ends or enjoying (however that may be possible) the infliction of pain. In such a world, in such a framework, a Salvation is possible without worrying too much about guilt (let alone, about equal or maximum application of guilt). For if there is death and sorrow and suffering and loss and pain, can we not be saved, even if we are not condemned for it? Can there not be a Resurrection of the Dead and a Restoration without attributing guilt to those who are raised from the dead and restored?

        Once again, this is not meant to be a “proof” that my idea is right; it is simply an attempt to show that it is, within itself, consistent.


      15. if you assume we need “salvation” aka being saved from something, then you are stuck with guilt. one requires the other.

        Or you can just go with the claim we need salvation being complete nonsense, and get rid of guilt too. Salvation is the cure promised for a disease that doesn’t exist.

        Liked by 1 person

      16. So, is someone guilty if he is in a burning house and needs to be rescued? Is someone guilty if he has acquired a deadly disease and needs to be healed?

        I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s really quite beside the point and (at least almost) always unhelpful and in fact hurtful to think about guilt, one way or another. But having a problem that must be solved does not necessitate guilt.


      17. What do you mean? Do you live in a world where no one you love dies and where you and everyone around you are perfectly happy and satisfied? Or where you see death as something good and beautiful, or otherwise satisfying and lovely?

        If there is no death, then I suppose there really is no need for the Resurrection of the Dead, or even any possibility for it. But I have seen death, and I believe in the Resurrection.


      18. There is a difference in the real world where bad things happen and the burning house that theists claim we are in.

        Death isn’t a bad thing by itself. It’s the natural end to life and we need it to allow others to live. We may miss those who die. That is no reason to make believe in magic.

        Liked by 1 person

      19. Well, if you’re happy with death & with an end to everything & all life being lost eventually, I don’t know what to say. But please don’t say ‘the burning house that theists claim we’re in’. Not all theists claim the same thing, and so far I don’t think you’ve understand my claim. I am not happy with death as the ‘natural’ end to life and separation from what I love. Or with all the other bad things that happen in this world. I look forward to a world where all can live together without the separation of death & where all will love perfectly & be perfectly happy.


      20. Raina, I’m not “happy” with death. It is normal, natural and necessary. And yep eventually everything will end. There is nothing bad from that, except that we humans think we should go on and on. It’s rather a fear of missing out, I think.

        Most, if not all, theists invent something we must be “saved” from e.g. your burning house.

        Unfortunately, Raina, you’ll be disappointed, or you would be if you weren’t ended. As for claims of some afterlife that is “perfect love and perfect happiness”, whose love and whose happiness? Would it be a friend of mine who was in love with me but I just didn’t feel the same? Is it my grandma who would find perfect happiness if she were young again, or mine older as I remember her?

        The idea of some “heaven” doesn’t make much sense nor do we have any evidence for it. Rather than wishful thinking, I do what I can here and now to be happy.


      21. Well, I believe and always shall in Perfect Happiness. For everyone who desires it (I’m not saying there are any who don’t; I merely leave that open).

        Everyone’s love and everyone’s happiness. Our perceptions of the world and desires would be perfected so that we desire what will satisfy everyone’s happiness. I believe that conflict of interests is not inherent, but accidental, and that with perfection it will disappear.

        I think that everything is made to be without end, not just us humans, if you’re wondering about that. You may think the end of things is natural and necessary; I don’t know about ‘natural’, but I do not think that the end of any good thing is necessary, but that all good things should and can remain forever.

        I don’t say that you shouldn’t do what you can here and now to be happy; in fact, I think we should do what we can here and now to be happy, and it seems to me that if we desire perfect and eternal happiness, we will seek the greatest present happiness possible. The idea of Heaven, as I understand it, makes perfect sense to me, and I rather think that ‘evidence’ has little to do with it, one way or the other. I think ‘evidence’ is highly over-rated in much of modern society, and people often forget that we don’t have half as much ‘evidence’ or ‘certainty’ about many things as some imply. As for wishful thinking, while I think it may often be wrong in matters of superficial details, it is my belief that, most often, ‘wishful’ thinking is nearer to fundamental truth than are many other kinds of thinking.


      22. Nope, the idea of a burning house does not remind me of hell. It reminds me of when a firefighter is an arsonist, and tries to pretend he is the hero when he rescues someone from a fire he lit. There would have been no fire if there wasn’t the action to make one. This holds true with theists when they insist that we need to be saved from something. They have to invent/cause this something.

        No sin, no god, no fall = no need for salvation. And death is nothing to be afraid of. It’s normal, natural, and necessary, even if it does make us sad.

        Liked by 1 person

      23. All right. I didn’t intend it that way at all. My only purpose with the analogy was to show that having a problem and being guilty are not the same.

        Well, I, at any rate, desire salvation from sorrow. And I do not believe that death is necessary; in this world, perhaps, but I see no reason why a better world, where death is not necessary for life, where life need not have conflict with other life, where there is no sadness, should not be possible. In fact, I believe such a world is possible.


      24. Raina, you can believe in what you want as long as it harms no one else. I’ll counter it as I see fit but tht doesn’t prevent your believe. However, the idea of some magical perfection strikes me as naïve. Perfection is a subjective term. Theists love to try to claim that their god has to exist since they want to claim some “perfect” thing must exist in the ontological argument. The problem is that they can’t define “greatest” or “perfect” at all nor can they show that whatever they imagine has to exist.
        You may think that everything is made to be without end, but not one bit of evidence supports that claim. Your idea of good is as subjective as mine, so what you want to exist forever I may not. You assume you have the right answers.
        What you seem to be saying is that if everyone would agree with me on what is perfect and happy, then we would all be happy. That’s silly. The idea of heaven, as you have invented it for yourself, probably does make sense to you. That doesn’t mean it is real or has to be real.

        You seem to take refuge in a common claim for nonsense tht somehow we don’t understand as much as we think, and thus magical stuff has to exist. That is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument, and when pursued as far as some theists do, becomes little more than solipsism.

        Every theist wants to pretend that they and they alone have access to “fundamental truths”. No evidence of that at all. The claim that science can’t deal with religion is faulty and is Gould’s “separate magisteria” claim, which was just to try to keep science from showing how much religions fail.

        If we must be “saved” from something, which most if not all, theists claim, then we are, in most religions, expected to have guilt for somehow failing to resist this thing. It is claimed to be our fault. I am not aware of a religion that doesn’t blame humans that this “salvation” notion. No need to be saved from anything by some magical beastie.

        It’s very tempting to want to pretend someone will save you. It takes a lot of energy to keep inventing why they don’t.


      25. When I say that we don’t know half as much as we think, I’m not promoting it as evidence for why any particular thing must exist. I’m merely saying that lack of evidence for something does not imply that something does not exist. Many things, like what may or may not happen after death, would not, by the type of thing they are not impressed to be, have an imprint on this physical world, so one cannot use what one does and does not perceive there as proof one way or another.

        If you don’t want to be happy and satisfied without any admixture of sadness or loss or dissatisfaction, then I guess I really do have nothing to say. It is my belief that such happiness and satisfaction is possible for all human beings, and anyone or anything else that may exist and want it. It’s not a belief that whatever is best for me is best for all; I’m not perfectly happy and satisfied myself here and now, though I seek it. It’s just a belief that the best exists for each and is attainable. I don’t believe so much in evidence, as I do in the best: that all good things are possible: that there is no need for anything good to come to end or not to be. Other than that, I have little to share. But I just wanted to make sure that you understand I’m not saying my idea of perfect or good is right for everyone; only that the right does not exist, not that it’s the same for all. I also wanted to remind you my statement about evidence is not supposed to imply evidence for my supposition; only that the lack of ‘evidence’ is not evidence against my position.


      26. Lack of evidence for something does indeed imply that it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t prove that but it certainly implies it. Theists often claim that there is evidence for an afterlife, near-death experiences, ghosts, messages from the dead, but those are always shown to be nonsense.

        It is convenient to claim that something could exist but not have an effect on this world, but it is only a baseless claim. This leads into the baseless claims of dualism, that somehow there is some magical thing that interacts with the body/brain and it leaves somehow when we die. If this thing can interact with an electrochemical object, then we should be able to sense it with things like various electrical meters, changes in biology, etc. We can’t. Again, it’s not definitive proof, but the possibility appears to be so low to be nothing more than a russel’s teapot problem.

        I am happy and satisfied and I do experience sadness, loss and dissatisfaction. I know that these occur and it is not somehow my fault that they do (at least not in most cases). You have yet to address the problem of happiness not being the same for everyone.

        In a limited physical world where we are mortal, you have wishful thinking and claims that fail. Just like any religion. In my opinion, you are setting yourself up for deep disappointment and again, thinking that it is you who are failing, not that the world is just not set up for what you desire.


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. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.