Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – ooops, they said the quiet part out loud

I ran across this post today “There are consequences for evangelists’ blind support of Donald Trump. Here’s what to expect in a post-Trump America.”   I captured it on a There are consequences for evangelists as a word doc since I’m suspecting that the Christians might take it down.   One might think it is a spoof but I think it is real.

Now it goes on to list how horrible it will be.   But first it says this:

“Christians are now seen as far-right supporters of fascism and blatant racism. This is not what we are of course, but it is how *others* now see us. This mistaken characterization will drive many away from Christianity.”  

Now, look at what these ever-so NOT “far-right supporters of fascism and blatant racism” are terrified of.  This isn’t the whole list just some of the juicy bits.  :

“Federal money will only be distributed to public schools. If money is distributed to private schools, they will be forced to adhere to federal education curriculum and mandates. Secular standards of education would become a requirement.”

aka they won’t be able to lie to children

“Most people accept vaccinations as valid science but do appreciate the choice of whether to be vaccinated or not. That will end. The federal government will likely incentivize states to increase their vaccination rates by repealing all nonmedical exemptions to mandatory vaccinations for children.”

aka they wont’ be able to be selfish idiots when it comes to public safety.

“Faith-based government-funded contractors that provide adoption and foster care services will likely lose all government funding. This has been a sore point for atheists for a long time. We can expect a heavy push to secularize child services.”

aka they will be prevented from only allowing Christians that they agree with to adopt.

“No longer will religious displays on government property be allowed. The Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty will be replaced – likely by something much more restrictive.”

aka they won’t be able to force their religion on others

“The church’s non-profit status will be examined under a microscope and the filing of Form 990 will be required for all houses of worship.”

aka They won’t be able to lie any more about finances.

“Christian support of Donald Trump has angered many. One very effective means to combat Christianity is to change how the nation’s history is portrayed. There will be a push to change the history of the USA from a nation formed to protect religious freedom to once created purely as a secular nation. This has already been proposed by the Christian opposition.”

aka they won’t be able to lie about American history or racism

“The Department of Education could be instructed to limit religious expression in schools. Under the guise of protecting a “increasingly diverse student body”, prayer inside school walls could be much more limited than it is today.”

aka they are terrified of people who are different than them e.g. bigots and racists

“Kneeling during the national anthem or refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance will be reframed as a noble act of peaceful protest. The value and symbolism of the American flag could also be purposely diminished to allow its use in protests (e.g. flag burning).”

aka they won’t be able to force their religion on others and limit others’ free speech ignoring the US Constitution

“Christians know this is coming. It could now arrive sooner than we thought. The religious opposition has already requested changes to what is considered “politically correct” verbiage, removing “nonbelievers” from the vernacular and using phrases such as “secular Americans” and “all faiths and none”.”

aka they won’t be able to force their religion on everyone or have their Christian privilege.

“The word “faith” is used often in government programs and initiatives. Atheists despise the word and prefer words like “conscience” or “interfaith” which dilutes the meaning and attempts to transform the word from a measure of religious belief to a measurement of morality.”

aka they won’t be able to force their religion on others

“This is another sore point for atheists. We will likely see a push to change to national motto from “In God We Trust” to “E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one”.”

aka they will have to admit that other people are equal to them.

So, gee, they are exactly as they are seen “Christians are now seen as far-right supporters of fascism and blatant racism.”

Nice that the author admits that they “Rather than characterizing Christians by their love for others, we are now characterized by our hatred of liberals or our penchant for parades.”  aren’t quite the loving people they claim.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – “A Case for Christmas” critique Part 1

Part One – Setting the Record Straight

Well, Lee has quite a challenge here since the story of the birth of Jesus Christ, and therefore Christmas, is certainly quite a mess.  We have two gospels that just ignore it, two that have the details everyone knows but are contradictory and Paul who has seems to have no idea what the gospels said about JC, except for a few bits about resurrection.

Lee says he thought he’d find that the claims about the nativity were going to be “flimsy”. Well, if the following isn’t flimsy, I’d hate to see what he would consider that.

The first claim is that his sources are too “immediate” to be considered legend.  He also claims that “legends” can have “contaminated” the “actual account of what really took place.”  So, which is it?  Add to this that the bible is supposedly inspired/written by a perfect omnipotent, omniscient being, and it doesn’t look too good for its validity.

First on the block of not being “quite right” is the manger scene.  Lee claims that it would be “unthinkable” for anyone to turn away a “pregnant Jewish woman seeking shelter.”  Nothing seems to support that at all, despite the claim of a “scholar”(Kenneth Bailey, a ThD whose entire experience relevant to this seems to be being a missionary in Egypt) saying it.  He also claims that the “inn” wasn’t part of the story, but again, nothing to show this in the bible which is ostensibly from a perfect being.  Is it lying or is Lee?  Rewriting the denial of shelter denies a bit of theology that insists that how martyred Christians are.  Lee also goes on to claim that there is a special word for “inn” in Greek rather than “kataluma” which is used in the NT to describe a rentable or guest room.  He never says what that other word is.  We also have Lee saying that a translation of the bible nearly 1400 years later goes from “guest room” to “inn”.   Amazing how mangled this perfect god allows its one and only set of words to humans to get.

Lee also tries to claim that somehow Jews and people in the middle east would allow their farm animals into the living area.  Noting how paranoid these people are about being ritually clean, it’s hard to imagine that would be allowed, to the point of having a manger in the living room from the animals to eat from?   I grew up on a dairy farm and often found myself in the milking parlor where the cows would poop whenever they wanted to and sometimes to ah, “explosive”, results.  I also mucked out the area were they lived, especially during the winter.

Lee also claims that the Protoevangelion of James is the source of Mary being really really pregnant and that it is mostly legendary.  One wonders which parts Lee considers true, Mary being fed by angels?  Mary’s hymen being examined?   It’s no less or more silly than the other versions of the story.  (now, if you want a really bizarre one, try the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, written around the same time.

Lee tries to claim that the author of the Gospel of Luke (AGoL) was writing much closer to the events.  Not really, the GoL was written between 5 and 8 decades after per most scholars.  And the author claims of having “investigated” things is meaningless.  No reason to believe this at all, considering how the gospels vary all over the place in claims of detail.  In the GoL, it says that the time came for Mary to give birth.  Now exactly how long are they staying there for this census that never happened, away from family and work?  Lee wants to claim that it could have been quite a long time.  But he forgets that the author of the Gospel of Matthew shows that this is all nonsense, no census, no need to invent a “guest room”.   And no need to make up a cave, though Lee is stuck with saying a prominent Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, was just making nonsense up in the same time period that the AGOL was writing.  The cave appears in the Protoevangelion mentioned above.

“Probably” and “surely” figure in most of Lee’s claims.  He claims that Joseph and Mary just went to the house of a friend or family member and stayed with them being seen by the shepherds who wandered in after the angel tells them what’s up, having no idea where to look among a supposedly huge throng for one woman who had a child.  Then they wandered off.  It’s great to see a Christian making nonsense up wholesale.

However, this is a moot subject, since there is no evidence at all for any such ridiculous census taking place.   This assumes that all of David’s descendants return to a village (there was never a “City of David” there).  *all* of them, at least a thousand years’ worth.  First, there needs to be some way of the Romans knowing who should be where to make the census valid. There isn’t.  There is also the fact that travel takes days in this era with at best a donkey and at worst feet.  How far do we think a donkey burdened by a pregnant woman can travel?  How far do we think a pregnant woman at the last couple of weeks of her term can travel, period? Of course, one can invoke magic, but that isn’t what Lee wants.  He wants to pretend that reality where this story takes place.

So, we have the author of GOL (AGOL) claiming this census, and then the author of the Gospel of Matthew (AGOMt) says that nothing like this happened, Joseph had a dream, they lived in their house and then ran off to Egypt, after the magi showed up.

So much for Lee’s claim that all of the gospels are to be taken as biographical history.  That doesn’t work very well when they directly contradict each other, mentioning drastic events like the massacre of the innocents or never mentioning them at all. As opposed to the majority of biblical scholars, Lee has to pretend that the gospels were written far close to the supposed events than we have any evidence for at all.  Nothing shows that AGoL was a physician (and at that time a physician wasn’t the assumed well informed person we know now), or a friend of Paul’s. We also have no reason to expect that the AGOL would mention Paul in the gospels (if they are indeed biographical histories) nor that he would have mentioned the baseless claims of martyrdom of any other supposed apostle.  Acts does end unfinished and this signifies nothing, especially that the GoL is somehow true and written early.  There is also no reason to mention the destruction of the temple since the need for the temple in the story is done.  I will mention that GoL is inconvenient for Christians since it has the apostles wandering right back into Jerusalem and celebrating at the temple.  Rather silly considering what supposedly happened earlier and still didn’t see those dead wandering around like the AGOMt claims.

The scholar that Lee claims as one of the “greatest historians who ever lived” (??) AN Sherwin-White, seems to only be worthy of such a ridiculous claim because he thought that the NT was history.  This is no more than an appeal to authority, and an attempt to pretend that this person’s opinion, that two generations is not enough to have a legend to wipe out a “solid core of historical fact”, is somehow immutable fact.  Just by looking back 60 years, we know that all sorts of nonsense overtakes reality, from JFK, to the moon landing.  It is stretch to claim that the GoL was written in the same generation of the supposed Jesus’s appearance.

The claim that archaeology has supported the bible’s claims is simply a deliberate false claim from Lee.  The AGoL has not been called a “first rate historian” by many scholars.  The only people who claim this are those who need the New Testament, and AGoL’s version to be true.  It’s notable that Lee does not mention the supposed scholars who supposedly think that the AGoL is a “first-rate historian”.

The instance that Lee tries to claim that was thought wrong and then was found right is the claim that JC lived in Bethlehem and then went to live in Nazareth some time later.   At one point we had no evidence for a Nazareth as claimed in the bible.  Now we do, since archaeology is always going on, and no, that doesn’t mean that Jesus exists since a town’s name was mentioned.  As repeatedly told to Christians, the fact that some myth mentions a real place or person, doesn’t make it true.  IF you want it to make it true, then every Greek god, every Egyptian god, Spider-Man, etc are as real as your god.  I’ve asked many of them if they are good with that. Unsurprisingly, most never comment again. The few who don’t run end up digging themselves deeper with further attempts to invent evidence for their god’s existence.  Of course, believers being believers, they had to declare that the one house found in what they want to call Nazareth (found by a group who went in with the presupposition that they would find Nazareth, and darned if they didn’t find something they named), under a convent called Sisters of Nazareth, of a correct time period “could be Jesus’ house”.   What they found was a Jewish house, nothing more, nothing less, in an area where Jews had lived for thousands of years.  Not exactly a shocking find.  This does not show that AGoL was right at all.  If we are to believe that, we should be sure that Horus and Isis exist since surprise, we’ve found houses of Egyptians in Karnak.  We should believe in Spidey since there is a Greenwich Village.

Finally, Lee tries to claim that there is no problem at all with the author of the Gospel of Mark (AGoMk) and the author of the Gospel of John (AGoJ) not mentioning one thing about the birth of JC.  He also simply doesn’t mention the discrepancies by the AGoMt.  He wants to claim it is an “argument from silence” which is drawing a conclusion from the silence of an opponent.  And he would have a point if that were the only evidence that is present.  We have the lack of mention of these magical events in two of the gospels, AND what stories we have contradict each other AND we have no corroborating evidence for either of those stories.  What we do have is that no one noticed any of the events of JC’s supposed birth, life or death and things went on as normal in Roman-occupied Palestine, no magical nonsense happening.  So we have an absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

We also have the excuse that the gospels didn’t contain everything since “everyone” knew the other parts.  Which doesn’t work with the other Christian excuse, that every gospel author was writing to a different audience.  Why not mention such wonderous events to those who evidently didn’t know them if they didn’t know the rest of the story?   Again, Lee’s baseless assumptions destroy his claims.  There is no evidence of Ignatius being mentored by anyone special (other than “tradition” which we know how well that works especially when it comes to who wrote the gospels) nor that the author “must” believe in the claim of the virgin birth.  We don’t’ even have Paul mentioning that rather special claim to prove JC’s bona fides to pagans.  Paul seems to know nothing about it at all.  There is no reason to assume that Ignatius was completely ignorant of the other nonsense being claimed about Christianity 70 years after the supposed events.  All of these various Christians seem to know about each other, if for no better reason than to attack them.

Strobel is right, the AGoMk wasn’t interested in the birth of JC nor was he interested in the death or supposed resurrection.  The oldest copies of that story end with nothing more than women running away and telling no one anything about the supposed empty tomb.  He does try mightily to claim that AGoMk “really” mentions the odd nature of JC’s birth, but all the verse he cites says is this “On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.”

Not one mention of magic in birth, but some real world acknowledgement that charlatans can’t fool their neighbors and that everyone was in on the secret that Joseph was cuckholded.

Lee notes a common problem for Christians, that Paul has no idea who Jesus is or anything about him or his life.  Lee’s excuse is that the details weren’t pertinent, but that is rather silly when even Christians now cite what JC said, the parables, etc.  When Paul chides his followers why does he not once mention Jesus and his words and at times directly contradicts Jesus?

Lee tries to claim that lack is because everyone knew the gospels, but we know that is likely not the case since the gospels are usually dated after the epistles *and* those far flung churches he establishes have no evidence of knowing anything about the gospels.  Paul is the first to find his new audience there since the supposed messiah never returned when promised.  He had to invent a new version of Christianity.  Are we to presume that since Paul didn’t mention things in the gospels, they didn’t exist?  Nope, but neither are we to presume that he ever knew about them in the first place.  For complaining about “arguments from silence” Lee uses them constantly.  Since we have no evidence of a magical man, a virgin birth, etc there is
no reason to think that they *ever* existed and were not just stories.

“What have we learned so far?”

  • That there is no historical record of Christ’s birth as claimed in GoL or GoMt.
  • That those stories contradict each other.
  • Historical people and places mentioned in a story doesn’t mean the story is true.
  • That the gospels are not the best source of evidence we have for what happened 2000+ years ago. They are the *only* source of badly contradictory myths about a birth of a man/god.
  • They mention events that there is no evidence for e.g. census, massacre, etc. and we have evidence that nothing strange happened during that time.
  • That, like stories about St. Nicholas, and Santa Claus, there is no practical implications for our lives in these stories. Virgin births and claims of descending from gods was nothing new.
  • The stories of the birth of Jesus cannot be shown as true and thus can be ignored. In the end, there was no magical child and it does not deserve our allegiance or worship.

Strobel finishes with declaring how “humble” JC was in his birth.  How?  This is the plan that he/his father came up with, evidently as the ONLY way for this god to not damn all of humanity for this god’s failure in Eden.  Christians can’t even agree on when JC became the salvation sacrifice, before he was born, after he was born, after he was baptized, etc.

A week or so until Part 2.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – “A Case for Christmas” – preview of a critique

Being completely bored, I signed up for Bible Gateway’s shilling of Lee Strobel’s new book “The Case for Christmas”.  I figured this will at least give me something to do and give me a few posts for this blog.  The videos are free, but they really, really want you to buy the books.

Unsurprisingly, this is just a rehash of Strobel’s apologetics books “The Case for Christ”, “The Case for Miracles”, “The Case for Grace/Hope/Faith”  (three separate books), “The Case for a Creator”, etc.  All of these present the same claims and demonstrate that apologetics are not for those who have a question, but for those who are desperate to cling to their religion.  Apologetics are also for those writers who have nothing else and want to squeeze their faithful one more time for the same information.

So continue to read if you’d like.  If you’ve frequented my blog before, it’ll be some, if not entirely composed, of the same counter-apologetics aka facts you’ve seen before. An age ago I ran the local planetarium’s Christmas show, so I have some experience in the range of nonsense that can be offered.

“Even when he was an atheist, Lee Strobel enjoyed the Christmas season–the gift-giving, holiday parties, and being with friends and family. But after his wife became a Christian, Lee started to investigate the real meaning behind all those nativity scenes he had seen outside of churches. In this four-week study, Lee reveals what he discovered as he sought to separate the holiday from the holy day, the facts from the fantasy, and the truth from the tradition. In each session you will explore:

What the Bible actually says about Jesus’ birth and how you can know it is accurate

Whether the Christmas story actually happened or developed from the myths of the day

The Bible’s claim that Jesus was born of a virgin and why it is important to your faith

How Jesus–and only Jesus–fulfilled hundreds of biblical prophecies about the Messiah

The Case for Christmas will invite you to look beyond the familiar traditions of the season, challenge you to examine the evidence for yourself, and consider why Christmas really matters.”

I’m guessing a lot of Christians will be confused since they generally have no idea what is in the bible.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – yet one more TrueChristian(tm) offers a “challenge” to atheists and fails

So, we have a Christian, Andy Bannister, who wants to ask “Why are some atheists so afraid of changing their minds?”.  This is a video, and of course, the comments are turned off.  So much for being the “confident” Christians that Solas claims on their website, eh?

Unsurprisingly, the video starts off with the usual false claims about atheists, how rude we all are for not blindly accepting what the particular Christian says, that we all evidently can’t come up with anything ourselves but have to repeat what other atheists say (which begs the question “since we are all repeating someone else, who is actually the originator of these things?”), that we have bad grammar and spelling (oh do call the kettle black, pot), and of course trying to be insulting by equating atheist with idiot, in the ever-so clever “village atheist” comment.

We end up quickly in the claims somehow atheists are fearful and this is “why” atheists don’t engage with the “best” arguments for Christianity.  This isn’t a new claim, it is just the “sophisticated theology” bit of nonsense that many Christians trot out, that atheists only pick the low hanging fruit to address.  This excuse is, of course, dependent on the theist being willfully ignorant about how atheists have indeed addresses those “best” arguments too.  This video isn’t for atheists, it is for a Christian to reinforce the false beliefs of himself and other Christians.  Apologetics aren’t for atheists, they are for theists.

Unsurprisingly, Andy says that atheists should “properly” examine the claims of the Christian faith.  The term “properly” comes up often in apologetics and the definition that is used this context is “in an acceptable or suitable way” not “in an accurate or correct way”.  It is nothing more than a code word for agreeing with the theist and not questioning what they say, something that is “acceptable” to them.

Andy goes on to appeal to authority in the form of Alistair McGrath, who evidently must be correct because he has a degree.  This fellow, anglican priest at Oxford (who defines atheists as ” I became an atheist – somebody who deliberately and intentionally does not believe in God and thinks that anyone who does believe in God is mentally deficient or seriously screwed up.'”, supposedly received a letter from a student that who became a Christian after reading one of McGrath’s books and the “very best” Christian philosophers.  Of course, this student was an atheist, because that makes the story.  This atheist never ever read the “other side of the argument” but when he did, poof, he became a Christian.  This of course ignores reality since this doesn’t happen every time, and indeed, atheists often become atheists because they did read the holy book of Christianity and realized what nonsense it is and read other books to see that the bible didn’t reflect reality.  To see McGrath’s other use of failed apologetics, here is a video/transcript of an interview with him.  This is the “quality” of McGrath’s arguments:  “Number one, there are a very large number of scientists who are religious believers; and these are not stupid people at all. ”  Quite a pathetic start, an appeal to authority fallacy.  Here‘s a more thorough take down of McGrath’s arguments.  If he is one of the ‘best’, Christianity doesn’t have much to support  it.

Andy goes on to repeat the claim that atheists don’t address the “best” arguments for Christianity by recommending these “best” authors like Rebecca McLaughlin.  Now, Dr. McLaughlin is one of those with again degrees, beloved by Biologos and is an entirely awful apologist.  This is her on her ‘one minute apologetics.”  “The Jesus of the Gospels is either God in the flesh or a terrible imposter. There is no middle ground.”  That is really all she has, nothing different from Paul saying, yep, we believe becuase we gotta believe.  She wrote a book, Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion.  That’s one assumption right in the title, since we know that Christians don’t consider each other Christians by the millions.  Looking at the amazon preview of the book, we see the usual apologetics, that somehow Christianity has dibs on every good human action and is the only thing responsible for human rights, the claim that persecution makes Christianity true, that somehow atheists have no morality, etc.  In other words, the same false and baseless claims, nothing new or “sophisticated” here at all.

He also of course tries to claim that atheists don’t read these arguments with an open mind and accusing atheists of being cowards and not “serious”, to again try to claim that we aren’t being honest or brave or seriously considering the material.  He also insists that pointing out that a Christian is wrong is being “rude”, doing the typical appeal to politeness when he has nothing else.  Nothing like a Christian accusing someone of lying and having no evidence for it.

It is interesting that Andy never mentions what a single one of these “best” arguments are.  One would suspect that is because when one of the arguments is dismantled, he can insist that wasn’t one of the “best” ones and then run to the next, never taking responsibility for his claims.

Atheists aren’t afraid of changing our minds.  We have no reason to .

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – and so the Christians don’t feel smug, a nice lie from our old friend Ray Comfort

buzz’s expression when the moron Trump says “‘At some point in the future, we’re going to look back and say, ‘How did we do it without space?” in reference to space exploration.

As often happens, many Christians want to pretend they are martyrs.   They have to, their bible says they won’t get the special prezzies unless their prophecies come true.   They have to insist that it was magical that their bible predicts they would be ridiculed for their nonsense.

So, on ol’ Banana Man’s youtube channel,  he is trying to claim that NASA was up to something they didn’t mention Buzz Aldrin’s wine and cracker on Apollo 11.   Alas, for Ray, Buzz wasn’t a Christian who ignored his bible and didn’t shout it from the streetcorners like Ray et all do, since no one would notice they were Christians from their actions.  Incidentally, Buzz was a Presbyterian.  He sounds like more of deist now from his book.  Can you imagine what ol’ Ray would say if a Catholic did this?

As usual, its always great fun to see Christians lie again when they want to pretend that Christianity is everyone’s religion. The world heard the quotation of the bible on the Apollo 8 mission.   Madelyn O’Hare protested it and was quite correct to do so since all Americans and all the world aren’t Christians.

Astronaut Aldrin practiced his faith and had no need for it to be advertised (you know, like JC says about not shouting about your faith from street corners like Ray does, Matthew 6). You can read about it in his great book “No Dream Too High” https://www.amazon.com/No-Dream-Too-High-Lessons/dp/1426216491 .

Poor Christians, I do love that they ignore their bible when convenient.  Here are a few bits by Buzz in his book:

“In the few weeks prior to launch, when I told Deke Slayton, one of the original astronauts who now ran the Apollo 11 flight crew operations, what I planned to do, Deke balked. “No, that’s not a good idea, Buzz.” He cautioned me, “Go ahead and have Communion but keep your comments more general.” I didn’t agree with Deke at the time but I understood and complied with the instructions. Looking back, he was probably right.”

“I radioed Mission Control “I would like to request a few moments of silence,” I said, “and invite each person listening in, wherever and whomever they may be to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and give thanks in his or her own way.”

“Over the years, I’ve often wondered if I did the right thing, that perhaps I should not have engaged in such an overtly Christian rite, because we wanted to emphasize that we traveled to the moon on behalf of all mankind – Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and even atheists. But I cannot deny history. The truth is the first liquid ever poured and the first food eaten on the Moon were Christian Communion elements. ”

“I don’t go around giving testimony to my faith and when anyone asks about the Communion on the Moon, I tell them I wanted to do something that was symbolic and something that was appropriate to the magnitude of what we accomplished. The best way to do that was to encourage everyone to give thanks in their own way. ”

Buzz believes in a higher power, but he acknowledges that there are good people of every kind.  A shame that so many Christians find a need to pretend that only they are important.

Buzz also has no problem in punching conspiracy theorists.

 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – oh look a Muslim creationist lies: Atheism succinctly refuted

a theist, muslim in this case, caught in a lie.
a theist, muslim in this case, caught in a lie.

oh look, a Muslim creationist lies.

It isn’t Ilya Prigogine lying, it is our friends over Blogging Theology.   Now, how did I know to question this false claim?  Well, Dr. Prigogine signed the Humanist Manifesto in 2003.  Rather unlikely that someone like this would be an authority that a theist would run to, right?  It stank of a lie.  

this is what the real quote is:

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28

The statement is misquoted and removed from context so as to inaccurately simplify and overstate the authors’ statement.

The exact phrase is (see also above):
The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred…

Theists are often lazy and almost always making false claims. How pathetic when their holy books tell them not to lie. Poor Paul has failed to listen ““Lying is not permitted except in three cases: a man speaking to his wife to make her happy; lying in times of war; and lying in order to reconcile between people.””  and “

“O you who believe! Fear Allah, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds).”(9:119)”

Tsk, lying just like a regular ol’ conservative Christian.  

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – David Geisler’s claims from Debunking Christianity

A question Christians really can’t answer

Over on John Loftus’ blog “Debunking Christianity, he has put up a post from a pastor that John has invited everyone to address.  I thought it would make a good post here.  And yep, many dead horses will be beaten.

David Geisler seems to be the son of Norman Geisler, yet another Christian apologist.   Norm seems to be called a “systematic theologian: which seems to mean no more than christians that do acrobatics to “harmonize” their scriptures to make the incoherent make sense. (and then they proceed to claim each other are wrong in their claims of “reasonableness”).  Norm was a biblical inerrantist, a term that Christians can’t quite agree on, since they all have some parts that they want to pretend are literal, some metaphor and some they just ignore since those parts are inconvenient.  Bible inerrancy does not mean bible infallibility or bible literalism.  Which goes to show just how screwed up these people are in their inventions of their religion in their images.  That Ravi Zacharias spoke at his funereal speaks volumes about the quality of Norm.  You can see Norm’s very poor apologetics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Geisler#Outline_of_Geisler’s_apologetic_system  They end up being rehashes of claims of “necessariness”, which the theist can’t support, the argument from creation assuming that Geisler’s version of the Christian god is the creator, and the argument from morals, which Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants.  He also claims that the bible events have archaeological, scientific and historic evidence supporting them;  this evidence mostly consists of the bible being claimed as evidence and forgetting it is only the claim.

David seems not to have fallen far from the tree.    He seems to argue for the same failed apologetics.  He also makes some quite wonderful fails on his own.   We can take a look at his claims.

“About me thinking the only way you’re going to change your mind about God and Christianity is if you have some kind of experience like the apostle Paul, I probably should’ve said, is that once you truly understand the depths of what my father taught, and see that what he taught is really reasonable, then it would still take you some kind of experience to get your attention, which would take the work of the Holy Spirit. I apologize for not making that clear that that’s what I meant. I don’t believe that just religious experience in general is a good enough filter for you to know what kind of God, and what kind of religion you should embrace.”

So, we have David claiming that to really believe, there needs to be an event like Paul’s conversion, which Paul himself couldn’t keep straight.  So, why doesn’t this god provide this for every single person, if, as many Christians claim, this god wants everyone to come to it. Many of other Christians, of course, claim that this god doesn’t want to give this experience since this god only wants belief by faith.  Which Christian is the right one, if any?  We also have the problem that David’s father’s arguments are not reasonable and are nothing new, often used by non-christian theists too.  Christians don’t accept their own arguments from anyone else, so no reason to accept them at all.

“I’m sure you are very well aware 1 Corinthians 2:14 teaches that “the natural man does not welcome or embrace the things of the Spirit of God.” Please note it’s not that the natural man cannot perceive the truth according to Scripture, it’s that he cannot receive the truth. The Greek word is dechomai. It means to welcome or embrace the truth. Furthermore you may know that John 6:65 teaches that only God can draw people to Himself.”

It seems that David might be a calvinist, since he parrots the nonsense they have that only this god can bring people to itself, aka predestination and not free will.  Romans 9 agrees with John 6:65: “65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.””  Poof goes the claims of free will from some Christians.

“Further, Ephesians 4:18 says people are ignorant because of the hardness of heart. These are just my thoughts about what the Bible teaches is true, backed up with scripture to prove my point. Now I know this is pretty strong language, and normally I wouldn’t even share these verses with someone who doesn’t claim to be a Christian. “But since you’ve been to Seminary I assume you know all these anyways, so I’m not telling you anything new. I’m just trying to explain why I believe the Bible teaches it’s gonna take more than just giving you good evidence and reason for you to take that step to Christ.”

Now why wouldn’t David want to share these verses with anyone who wasn’t already aware of them?  Everyone can read the bible, nothing in it is secret.  David seems to be afraid of something if non-christians might know these things in the bible.  In the bible, one thing consistently causes hardness of the heart, this god.  We see this in Exodus many times, and in Ephesians 4, we see it again “18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. “ with, John 6, we see that this god again causes this, with its intentional picking and choosing who can accept it or not.  (Deuteronomy 2, Joshua 11, Isaiah 63, John 12, Romans 11, 2 Corinthians 3,  also have this god controlling people’s minds aka “hardening” their hearts).  Perhaps David is afraid we will see that his god is no more than a tyrant.

“Concerning the Apostle Paul, as I said before, I thought his issues were also more theological since he was a good Jew, who would’ve had a vey hard time accepting the doctrine of the trinity. Now let me try to give you an example to back up my belief about this. In the last two years one of my staff and myself have been talking to this atheist. Over a period of time my staff member answered all his intellectual questions and one day he said to my staff member checkmate!, meaning he didn’t have any more intellectual barriers to faith. But he didn’t become a Christian. Then this atheist friend asked me to help him with a friend of his, who had made some bad decisions earlier in her life but was now having difficulty just surviving physically.”

 

No reason to believe this story at all.  But it might be true.  A shame that the only reason David wanted to help is to convert people aka get the external validation he craves.

“So I reached out to a church in the city where she lived and they reached out to her, and helped her physically. Now I got an email from her a couple weeks later and she said “thanks for helping me…I feel like I’m on my way to becoming a Christian.” I should also tell you that our atheistic friend whose name is John also, used to say to us “my Christian friends are nicer to me than my atheist friends.”

Again, convenient story that there is no reason to believe.  Humans are usually nice, religion makes no difference.  But so many Christians just can’t resist putting in their claims about how everyone thinks that they are so great.

“So when our atheistic friend heard what I did for his friend a few weeks later, I learned that he became a Christian. Now I’m not saying he became a Christian because of what I did for his friend. I’m say that my acts of kindness contributed somehow to him being more open to allowing God to work in his sinful heart and repent.”

And more baseless claims.  Christians do love to invent their stories.

“Sometimes I even say to atheists I talk to: “you mean to tell me if I could answer your question to your satisfaction right now about your biggest barriers to Christianity, that right now you would repent of your sins–you would turn around 180°–you would invite Christ to come into your life and ask Him to change you from the inside out as Philippians 2:13 says, and will follow as He taught us to live for the rest of your life?” “

Unsurprisingly, David has to lie and claims that atheists aren’t honest, if they simply say “yes” to this question.  Now, I can say yes to his question with no problem. The issue is that his magic spell at the end doesn’t work.  I was a Christian and invited this god to help me not lose my faith.  God never showed up.  David also makes believe that his version of Christianity and “follow as he taught us” is the right way since Christians don’t agree about that at all.  David’s excuse for his god being a no-show 40 years ago will likely be “mysterious ways”, despite what he has claimed about how much he knows what his god does and wants so far.

“Now sometimes if an atheist I’m talking to is more honest, they will say no because there’s probably some other areas that are barriers. So when I’m witnessing to a skeptic I always point out there are two questions you must answer concerning Christianity before you become a Christian: First is there enough evidence to believe that Christianity is true? Now that involves apologetics. But then once you’ve decided that it is true, it doesn’t automatically make you a Christian. You have a much more difficult decision to make. You have to decide “do you wanna believe in Christ?” That’s a decision of your will, not your mind, and that does not involve apologetics.”

Per David’s words so far, this not a matter of will at all, it is a matter if this god chose you to be able to accept it.  He has changed his mind on what he wants to claim is his god’s MO.

“Now both of these decisions are essential for someone to become a Christian. By the way my father would often say that both the presuppositionalist apologists and the evidentialist apologists don’t understand clearly the distinction between “belief that” and “belief in” That has been my experience in dealing with some of them as well. I also like Bill Craig’s distinction between that we know something is true and how we show something is true.”

This bit is very funny.  All apologists are presuppositional.  Norm presupposed his god is necessary and that it is only his god that can be the creator.  There is no difference between “belief in” and “belief that”.  Christians believe in their god, and Christians believe that their god is real.  Same idea. WLC is just as incompetent as Norm in his presuppositions.  The poor guy’s whole argument about the resurrection is that there was an empty tomb when he can’t even show a tomb exists.

“Romans 8:16 teaches that “the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the sons of God.” As you probably know, Saint Augustine said faith is an understanding step and the understanding step is faith’s reward. I’ll have to say faith and reason still can be complementary, I just have to clarify what you mean by faith, which a lot of Christians don’t do.”

There’s that holy spirit again, which demonstrably from Christian claims, can’t tell anyone the same story twice since all Christians claim that they got their version from the holy spirit.  Faith is not understanding, faith is blind acceptance, aka the presuppositions that Norm, David and Bill make to try to claim that their religion is true.

“As for your question about whether I’ve led any Chinese to Christ when I lived in Singapore. Singapore is a tiny little country but I did travel all throughout Asia over 13 countries I did training in. The answer is yes…a lot. Whenever I would preach it’s very rare that someone would not indicate they want to pray to receive Christ, especially if I ended I’m talking about my sister’s suicide, and I’m telling my audience I’m not sure where my sister is because I’m not sure if she was ever a Christian…even though she grew up in the home of Norm Geisler.”

Interesting argument, but it’s essentially the argument from popularity.  David forgets that Muslim evangelists do the same things as he does and get converts too.  It’s a shame that David has to use his sister in this way, in his sadistic fantasies: “ooh, she might be in hell” and cue the crocodile tears about something that David agrees with.  All he has is fear to try to scare people into agreeing with him.

“So that’s why I believe that it’s not always a matter of having enough evidence why people don’t take steps to Christ. In fact, it reminds me of what Jesus said in the parable in Luke 16:31. He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Yep, luke does have this and its because JC claims that his father and he do their best to pick and choose who can accept them, and then damn the rest for no reason.  Luke also has this “king” saying that anyone who doesn’t want him as king should be brought before him and murdered by his followers (Luke 19).  Many christians very much don’t like that parable since it is rather obvious who the “king” is supposed to be.

“You may be interested to know that my wife grew up with idols in her home. she did not grow up as a Christian home and many in Singapore did not grow up as Christians. I also want to clarify what I said about once you establish the evidence for a theistic God, then miracles are not only possible they are probable when you look at the evidence for Jesus.”

Oh my.  Such a baseless claim.  David doesn’t explain how this works at all. However, we do know how it works.  When you are convinced of a thing, no matter if it is true or not, then you assign coincidence and parlor tricks to this thing as evidence for it, since you now are invested in maintaining your belief that you have some special knowledge and the friendship of some magical being.

“The Cosmological argument establishes that an infinite power exists that created the universe. So once you’ve established that logically then you can build on that argument. I’d like to say you can piggyback off of it.”

Well, that’s what Christians would like to pretend.  The Cosmological argument only works if you have the presupposition that there needs to be a creator.  We have no evidence that one is needed or “necessary” at all.  Only most theists need one.  We have no idea if cause and effect are part of the universe’s beginning or existence.

“Afterward you can establish the moral argument for the existence of God. It’s true you cannot start with a moral argument, because you haven’t demonstrated the principle of cause-and-effect that you do in the cosmological argument.”

nope for this one too.  That Christians can’t show or agree on what their god wants as morals, we have no evidence or need for an objective lawgiver.  What we have are Christians who have no problem with this god doing horrible things and also being horrified if humans did the same things.  If it is the actor that determines if an action is moral or immoral, then the action is subjective and thus Christians have a subjective morality, one based on might equals right.

“Then you can hear the teleological argument and conclude that a theistic God exists.”

The teleological argument is the argument from design.  Sigh.  So, we have David who thinks this can be used to show that his version of the Christian god is the only designer.  It doesn’t. It tries to claim that something designed reality, and has no evidence for that at all.  It also can be used by any theist and poor David doesn’t believe other theists when they use it.

“You can also add the ontological argument, although David Hume’s criticism is correct that if you start with the ontological argument you cannot get where you want to go. And so we a moral intelligent personal and necessary being sounds like the God of the Old Testament, a Theistic God.”

As you can see above, we don’t have a “moral, personal, and necessary” being at all.  I do note that David didn’t try to show evidence for how personal this god is. Good idea on his part, since all he has are baseless claims that other religions use too.

“But when you’re arguing for the cosmological argument I don’t think it’s enough just to argue beginning with the causality argument, because of the criticisms of Hume, but once you understand what act in potency is, and what a contingent being is, and what a necessary being is, then you can establish the current causality argument as well, and it strengthens the cosmological argument.”

All of those things that David mentions, “act in potency” etc are made up nonsense from apologists (Aquinas) who need to pretend that their god exists.  Still no evidence that anything is necessary at all.  And since the cosmological argument relies on nothing more than opinion e.g. the most “perfect” thing idea, it still fails dramatically.

“Now I’ve already told you my father also has an argument for God based on the argument from being, that we have in the appendix of his book 12 Points That Show Christianity Is True. Now if you’re interested, I’ll send this to you and you can look at that and tell me whether you think it’s valid argument or not. I would be curious to get your opinion I plan to get it presented in philosophical journal sometime this next year, because it’s never been critiqued from an academic point of view. If you have any suggestions I’ll be glad to hear them as to where I should send it. I think I told you my father thought that this argument was one of his most important contributions to Christianity. Hope this is all helpful information for you, maybe not to change your mind, but at least to help you understand the Christian faith doesn’t have to be unreasonable!”

No one needs to have David send his father’s nonsense to them, we can see that on his father’s wiki page. As I noted above, it’s nothing new or true at all.  And for his desire to present in a philosophical journal, oh my.  All of his father’s claims have been long addressed by academia and all of his father’s claims have been found wanting.

Yep, the Christian faith still is unreasonable.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – what Trumpies really do say

Here is a real quote from a real live Trumpie, a relative by marriage of mine.  I asked her what she thought about taxpayers paying for the defense of Trump on a rape charge.

“Get a life attack movie stars for rape, sports players for rape! If Trump did rape someone it was used to set him up for money!”

yep, here is a woman who is defending a rapist because she is an ignorant bigot and failure as a human being.  She blames the victim and she has no problem if Trump really did rape someone.

These people are disgusting and deplorable.  I’ll do whatever I can to get Trump out of office and to stand against these vermin.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – I’ve not had a complete nut for a while: Christian Identity, Aliens and multiple dimensions

I’ve not had a complete nut for a while.  Here’s one I ran into on youtube.  Amazing how many rocks these idiots are under. After calling his lies out several times, I get this:

“Thank you all for pointing out my errors & challenging my position &/or perspective. It has reminded me of how short sighted I can be when wrapped up in my own head. I knew what I was trying to say, I just couldn’t express it coherently. My intention has not been to convince anyone of anything; it is just my understanding of things based on my layman level studies & life experiences conveying it in a free exchange of ideas in response to “Apologetics Squared’s” comment.

I hope it can be clearly understood with my words, this final time. My equation of good/evil = evil/good & explanations thus far have fallen short of achieving a clear & concise understanding of my perspective. I realize the fault rest in my lap, alone. I believe an illustration would be helpful.

 A graphical illustration with words hopefully will do the job. Hopefully we can all agree at some level the following: 1. good & evil exists & a line separates the two with various degrees of each. 2. Morality & immorality are connected to good & evil in some shape form or fashion. 3. Ultimately, we all have the same origin 4. We are all similar, yet each of us is very unique.

After much reflection I realize it is actually much more complicated, yet simple at the same time.

Imagine a graph with, good in the upper left quadrant, evil in the lower left, evil in the upper right & good in the lower right. Above the left half we label good & the right evil. On the left side, what is good is moral, what is evil is immoral. On the right side, evil is moral & good is immoral. Therefore we have the equivalent perspectives on both sides inverted, essentially a mirror image. When expressing in an algebraic equation it can be expressed as good & moral/evil & immoral ≈ evil & moral/good immoral.

Above the graph place a circle directly centered above & connected to the line dividing the left & right halves. Now, from that same point on the circle touching the centerline, encircle the whole graph. Insert the word Source in the circle on top. The right & left halves are the perspectives of moral & immoral in relation to good & evil. It should like the #8 with a much larger lower half divided into 4 equal quadrants vertical & horizontally. Does scripture support any of my ideas to this point?

According to the Bible scriptures, light was created & separated from darkness on day 1. The Sun, Moon & stars where placed on day 5, not created. Then mankind was created on day 6. (Rev. 1) We can surmise from this that light & darkness are not day & night, (in verse 1), in the normal sense.

They have an alternate or dual meaning. Examples of light & darkness not being from material sources, such as the sun, moon & stars is 1 John 2:8-11, 2 Pet.

1:19, 1 Pet. 2:9, Mic. 7:8-9, etc. They infer good & evil.

This should at least verify the left ½ of the graph. We now need to interject mankind into the graph. We are the ones that have the perspective based on several factors which are varied. In order for man to have the capacity to be good, or evil there has to be something inherent we possess.

Christian circles call it sin nature. Perhaps others will call it the duality of man. What is the origin of mankind & the different races? These questions have pondered many. The standard narratives of explanation lack satisfying the curiosity of most, imo. There is so much controversy in this subject many dare not tread near its path. The following, many will probably find preposterous, or some other adjective, with added expletives. If so, well so be it, such is life.

In animal husbandry we have “pure bred” animals of all sorts. We also have produced new breeds of the various types of animals. We know that once, let’s say a mare is bred with another breed of stallion, the result is a mixed breed.

We also know that same mare can no longer birth pure bred offspring. We know that some breeds are preferred over others for their intended purposes. We also know when interbreeding to often there are many various undesirable results. The same principles applied to animal husbandry also apply to mankind. It is a genetic thing, from my understanding. I’m sure we have all heard of mankind’s Royal bloodlines. Some can be traced back for centuries & millennia.

Perhaps we have all heard the phrase, “spawn of Satan”, most often used in a metaphoric sense. What if the spawn of Satan is an actual bloodline? It would explain much where religious dogma is lacking, imo.

Let’s go back to Eden. Perhaps what Eve partook of was from the serpent’s seed. Then she partook of Adam’s seed the same day, even within the same hour. Then she bore twins they named Cain & Abel. Since Cain later murdered his brother Abel we can surmise Cain was the spawn of Satan. Let’s call this the evil seed line & add seed line to evil above the right side of our graph. Adam & Eve were not of this line & had other children. We can place this in our graph above the left half & call it good seed line.

A reference to satanic seed line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTb5-xuFrlA (NOTE: Many will find the reference link racist. I do not endorse any negative racial claims in the video. I do not believe in any type of racial superiority. The video has many Biblical references that traces wording to the Hebrew roots that support my above statements.)

Now we have a graph that is almost completed with biblical reference to both sides, at least arguably so. We must now take into account the perspective of each individual from both seed lines on each side of the graph. If I am of the evil seed line my perspective will be in opposition to the good seed line, & vice a versa. Since both seed lines are corrupted with that of the other, due to seed injection from both sources into Eve, there are varying degrees of good & evil on both sides. How they are perceived by each side varies in degrees depending upon where one is located in the graph.

I hope you are able to visualize that. I’m certain we will not all agree, if anyone for that matter. I am not yet done. There is archeological, anthropological & sociological evidence of ancient origin that testifies to a similar “creation of mankind” narrative that has taken place all over the world at different periods of time. Zecharia Sitchin’s “Earth Chronicles” is one such source.

I am of the opinion it explains the source of our different races. This justifies our graph to be duplicated for each race. If we were able to inter-relate these graphs we would have a multidimensional montage of the interrelationship of good & evil, how they interrelate to moral & immoral in the varying degrees as perceived by all people.

If one can image how this would look, I believe it will explain many things, as well as raise many more questions. I once heard of a study conducted of the many attributes of God. Their conclusion, God is a being of at least 26 multiple dimensions.

We haven’t yet fully understood the 3 dimensions we live in & many hardly believe another dimension even exists we call spiritual. I hope you can at least visualize a picture of what I am expressing. Even with all this, it is not complete. I am not sure it can be on the level we exist upon.

This is my perspective of things. It doesn’t explain everything, nor is meant to. It just makes since to me & explains plenty of things about life. It is obviously very controversial & debatable.

When we debate about who is right are wrong we will just be chasing our tail, or ghost, or boogeymen that don’t exist. Nor will it bring unity & communion to mankind. On the other hand, when we realize we are from the same source, that there as so many perspectives, discipline ourselves to empathize with others & connect as many dots as possible in the multidimensional montage I have attempted to grammatically characterize, we will have unity & communion. If nothing else, our common ground will always be the source above which encapsulates us all. I’ll let you label that source whatever feels comfortable to you. In the infamous words of Forest Gump, “That’s all I got ta say about that.” God bless everyone, Amen.”

Now, this is my response:

I appreciate the time you took to write this.  However, it is full of baseless claims and false claims, no more than the usual apologetics to try to excuse this god.  And you still have lied: “Satanist/Luciferians believe it is moral, (perhaps not all of them)”

You have done an interesting job in showing that religion has people make up and believe in “insane” things.

Morality and immorality are what humans use to describe what they want to claim is “good” and “evil”.  In my opinion, there are some standard ideas of good and evil, and they track with what allows society to work, based on property rights and individual rights.  We have a problem with Christans when they don’t agree on what morality or “good” their god wants but they demand to have their opinions taken as some truth. All humans have their origin here on earth, and the evidence points to evolution and a common universal ancestor.  There are thousands of religions who all claim that their god is the creator, and none have evidence for this.  We are indeed similar and unique.

Your drawing is this:

It makes little sense.  Not sure where you are getting any algebra at all

The bible says that light was separated from darkness.  There is nothing in Genesis that says that this is a metaphor.  The sun, moon and stars are created, since the bible, and Christians, claim that this god created everything.  “ And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. “  You are already misrepresenting what the bible says, either out of intent or ignorance.  The author of genesis’ ignorance about how light works doesn’t mean that this author had any deeper meaning intended.  This is apologetics, trying to retcon one part of the bible to match others.

So it doesn’t verify the graph at all.  It has nothing to do with the graph.  You can’t explain what this supposed “perspective” is either, hand-waving it away.  You assume a objective good and evil, which again you can’t show, nor can you show anything “inherent”.  You simply assume that like every Christian and present no evidence for it.

I have no problem with the fact supported origin of humanity and the different races: evolution and adaption.  That theists want magic involved is childish.  Your nonsense is indeed preposterous, baseless and racist.

You show your ignorance on how breeding works.  “We also know that same mare can no longer birth pure bred offspring”  You are so amazingly racist with your lie that a mare somehow can’t have a offspring of her breed if she breeds with a stallion of her breed after mating with a stallion of a different breed, e.g. a Thoroughbred mare can’t have a Thoroughbred foal if she mates with a Thoroughbred stallion after breeding with a Arabian stallion.  You don’t even understand basic biology.  How pathetic.  Your nonsense comes right from wannabee nazis and white supremacists.

The “undesirable results” from interbreeding are nothing more than human opinion, but again, nice racist lies. You belong on Stormfront with your miscegenation lies.

Your ignorance about “royal” bloodlines also shows your ignorance.  We have had quite the failure with limited genetics in those lines e.g. inbreeding having things like hemophilia showing up in European royal lines.

There being no satan, and theists claiming that satan is just a magical spirit there is no magical bloodline.  All you want is to believe your racist nonsense.

Again, we have you making up your very own interpretation of the bible to make up your own religion and god, just like every other Christian.  It’s quite hilarious to see how Christians invent new nonsense for their myths.  Nohting in the bible supports your baseless claims so we have baseless claims on top of baseless claims.  And your very own myth comes up with a problem since satan sperm would be with both children, but heck you just invoke more nonsense.  The story has Cain murdering Abel because a very stupid god favored one over the other for no reason, and this omniscient god knew what would happen.  Then of course we have Cain finding more people around and whole cities so the whole Genesis thing is such a pitiful failure.

You’ve already shown you are a racist so you do support the “negative racist claims” in your pathetic video.  You do claim that there is racial superiority with your attempts to claim that “some” people are satanic.  Always good to see racists run away from their responsibility.  All you have is just more Christian Identity aka Nazi nonsense.

We do have a graph and that graph is complete nonsense and created by a poor lil’ man who wants to pretend how great he is.  I do love how the “born that way” nonsense shows how again, Christians can’t agree on free will or predestination.  It’s also hilarious that what you’ve think you’ve invented is nothing more than an alignment chart from a role-playing game.  Sorry, that’s been around for years.

There is no “archaeological, anthropological and sociological” evidence for your lies, Kirk.  You just are recycling the social Darwinism bullshit that was left behind decades ago, except for wannabee nazis.  There is nothing to support your claim of a similar creation narrative all over the world.  One just has to know about the religions of others and their myths to know that is an outright lie.  Stichin is an ancient astronaut nitwit whose claims have been shown as lies again and again.  He’s about as silly as Velikovsky.

Your baseless nonsense is indeed your opinion and it has nothing to do with reality.  There was no “study” on the attributes of this god, only more baseless opinion, since there is nothing to “study” and theists don’t agree.  It’s always so cute when some idiot theist decides to lie about string theory to make their baseless claims sound important.

Your “perspective of things” is nothing more than the usual incoherent nonsense invented by human being who wants to pretend he knows some magical secret.  It doesn’t explain anything and I think you know that since you already are backtracking on it when you know it doesn’t hold up.

You want to falsely claim that if we debate right and wrong, we are “chasing our tail”.  That’s the common attempt by a person who knows his lies won’t hold up so he wants to try to convince everyone not to look hard at what he says and find that it is ridiculous. The good thing about science is that it is true no matter what.  Your nonsense isn’t even close.  Your attempt to claim that everyone’s opinion is equal is the what liars and racists want to spread in defense of their failure.

Very scary that people like are around and they drive!