51. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12965 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 4:54 pm

JuliusFirefly,

No one defeats Chomsky in debate because he doesn't debate unexamined arguments.

If we just look at the religous funding issues in our prison system, we miss 90% of the problem.

Secular Organizations, commonly referred to as corporations, are well-funded and they receive the majority of our tax dollars in the prison system.

Corporations, which are the churches of profit, enforce their doctrine on our prison system. They lobby Congress to pass more laws and increase terms of incarceration. They use our tax dollar to recruit new members into their prisons/profit system.

The US prison system is corrupt. No surprise that it is a haven for all other forms of corruption.

52. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12959 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 4:05 pm

Mark Taunton,

My wife prophesied that I would win the lottery.
I spent months waiting for my winnings. They never arrived.

I finally decided that her prophecy would never come true. So, I went out and bought a ticket. Now I am enjoying the winnings.

A real prophecy would have read: It would be nice if Isreal had a homeland. Perhaps, someday, a powerful leader will like that idea, and he will use his power to implement it.

53. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12955 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 3:49 pm

aidanjt,

I am an Athiest. I catagorically deny the existence of any Diety. I catagorically deny the possiblity.

A diety cannot exist UNLESS I worship it. I do not worship anyone or anything. Therefore a diety is an impossibility.

I do not deny that some entity might exist, and that entity might be DIFFERENT form us.

The fallacy of theism is that it examines two different thing and then arbitrarily chooses which is the god and which is the diety.

A diety only exists as a judgemental relationship. Joe is stronger than Bill. Bill is heavier than Joe. Which is the diety?

An unworshipped diety is just another garden variety extra-terrestrial.

54. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12810 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 12:17 am

David A Robertson,

Well, thanks for staying on point.

I must take issue with you on the Bible as non-fiction.

It begins with Adam and Eve, who are animated clay dolls, much like Pinochio. Then they meet a talking snake. later on, Moses meets talking shubbery.

Gideon blows a horn and a city collapses. Lots wife turns into a pillar of salt ( Medusa turned people to stone, a much neater trick).

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
The Bible is a comic book.

The New Testament isn't much better. An itenerant day laborer has the power to raise the dead. But there isn't a single rich or powerful person in the entire empire who wants their dead relative resurrected. If Jesus could have peformed even ONE of the miracles, he would have been chained to Pilate's bedpost.

The Bible is nothing more than fairy tales, and not very good ones at that.

It is far less historically accurate than the Illiad.

Anyways, my next question:

What are the parameters of your beliefs? Do you belive that Achilles existed and that he had a problem wtih is heel? Or are you an Athiest on non-christian topics?

Are you a supernaturalist, or are you a 99.999% Athiest with the single exeption of Christianity?

55. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12804 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 12:03 am

The biblical prophesy of Jews returning to their homeland is only true if you believe that Winston Churchill was God.

56. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12790 by Joadist on December 13, 2006 at 9:39 pm

No one really cared about Communism then, until it got labelled Godless.

Stalin was not a godless athiest.
He was a Churchless Statesman.

Communism isn't athiestic. It is intolerant of seditious institutions.

People who bring up the Stalin/Mao fallacy are not attacking athiesm, they are defending Theocracy.

57. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12760 by Joadist on December 13, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Shaunyboy,

We seem to have a semantic disagreement.

You say that without 'free will' we could make no choices. Does that mean we could not choose to breathe? Would we die of thirst because we could not choose to drink?

If so, then we had Free Will without God.
If not, then you are using 'Free Will' to describe plain old ordinary will. Dogs and cats manage to make choices. Do they have Free Will?

In my world, if I rob a bank, I have broken a law.
In your world, if I rob a bank, I have broken a law AND committed a sin.

So, my question is, Why the unnecessary redundancy of adding SIN to what is already a crime?

Kingasaurus, Quite Rightly.

Free Will was invented by Apologists. It was a way to explain why a perfect God created an imperfect world. It can't be God's fault, so it must be ours. God loves to take credit when things go right, but he vanishes whenever anything goes wrong. Ever heard a kid say "I didn't break the cookie jar, the floor broke it"?
That is Free Will in a nutshell.

58. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12715 by Joadist on December 13, 2006 at 11:28 am

Thrall,

Marriage, at least in the US, provides a large number of special priviledges and benefits.
Christians never fail to look at the bottom line. By expanding the possibilities of marriage, they risk losing substantial amounts of money.
They don't really oppose gay marriage. They oppose equal distribution of tax dollars, especially among those unlikely to be Christians.

Anytime you are confused about the Christian stand on an issue, follow the money.

If we allow everyone to get married, then we eliminate the special benefit for those who conform to the Christian model.

The current Christian model would also prevent same-sex Hetrosexuals from receiving the benefits of marriage.

59. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12625 by Joadist on December 13, 2006 at 1:56 am

Sorry david, you don't get off that easy.

The bible was written as FICTION, complete with fairy tale monsters and superheros arriving just in the nick of time to rescue the frightened townspeople.

Dracula was Stoker's fictionalized narration of his actual encounters with vampires.

Bottom line; You can't simply declare that your comic book is history and mine is not.
You will have to provide a standard by which a determination can be made.

At least Stoker was a contemporary of Dracula. The Council of Nicaea didn't exist during any of the events in the bible. Stoker's book was historically consistent. We know the Bible is historically innacurate on a great number of things, such as the date of Noah's flood.

I would think it a very simple task for you to provide a disproof of Dracula that did not also disprove Jesus.

60. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12623 by Joadist on December 13, 2006 at 1:40 am

Religion is the fear that somewhere out there a tax dollar is not finding its way to the collection plate.

61. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12604 by Joadist on December 12, 2006 at 7:28 pm

John P,

An important point and well stated.

I asked the police to find the guy who stole my car. They made a list of suspects and questioned them. They never found out who stole my car.

Finally, one cop asked me what kind of car I owned. I had to admit that I never really owned a car, but I was still sure it had been stolen.

62. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #12588 by Joadist on December 12, 2006 at 4:43 pm

I have designed a Time-Travel machine. It is flawless in concept and theory.

Now all I have to do is design a universe which has a different set of laws.

63. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12584 by Joadist on December 12, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Well, I must add one bravo in favor of the reviewer;

"HL Mencken in Biological drag"

If anyone ever referred to me in such a manner, then I would feel that my entire existence had been justified.

RD's publicist should seize on that phrase and proudly display it on book covers and t-shirts.

64. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12481 by Joadist on December 12, 2006 at 6:07 am

David A Robertson,

Jesus rose from the dead.
Dracula rose from the dead.

Why should I accept one of those statements and not the other?

I just want a justification for one that does not also justify the other.

If I allow you to use the Bible, then you must allow me to use Bram Stoker's book.

I know it is a bit unfair because there is far more folklore about vampires than about Jesus.

65. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12415 by Joadist on December 11, 2006 at 8:37 pm

Shaunyboy,

I may have asked before, but I didn't get a clarification. You continually use the phrase 'Free Will'.

1: Man without Free Will could choose to eat the apple or the pig without restrictions.
2: Man with Free Will could no longer eat the pig without penatly.

Why is will with restrictions more FREE than will without restrictions?

It seems to me that the entire notion of Free Will is a negative. It did not provide any choices that we did not already have. But it did create penalties which did not previously exist.

Wouldn't we be much better off without Free Will?
We could still do everything we currently do, but without the risk of offending God.

It seems to me that the sole purpose of Free Will was to create a crime where none existed.

God did not give is Free Will. He gave us something else which we did not previously possess...the ability to SIN.

Gee thanks.

66. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11990 by Joadist on December 9, 2006 at 3:16 am

David A Robertson,

The Gospels do not claim anything. They are, at best, anecdotal.
Believers in the Gospels believe they are true.
Believers in LOTR believe it is true.

In both cases, no one outside those fan clubs believe them to be true.

Until you can present an external peer review that accepts the Gospels as a legitimate history textbook, the Gospels remain fiction.

The Spanish Inquisition did not get its morals from the bible. It got its immorals from the bible.

Theists think inside the box. Athiests say there is no box.

67. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11971 by Joadist on December 8, 2006 at 4:34 pm

Shaunyboy,

You are correct. The eye is far too complex to be a product of this universe.
Therefore, this universe is a product of the eye.

The eye, being far too complex for a random universe, required that a universe be designed specifically for the eye.

So, in the beginning, there was the Eye. And on the second day, God created a universe where the eye could function.

68. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11968 by Joadist on December 8, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Mark Taunton,

I assumed that my point was so obvious that I could address it by satire.

The problem with prophecy is: Once you make a prophecy, it is no longer a prophecy. It is a Game Plan.

There is also the corollary to prophecy, which is seeing it fulfilled everywhere. Comparing everything to the prophecy to see if it might be the fullfillment.

Post Hoc Ergo Hoc

Go read some HG Wells or Jules Verne. Their books are filled with prophecies.

69. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11866 by Joadist on December 7, 2006 at 10:23 pm

jdaigle,

Quite Correct. The death toll attributed to Stalin also includes the millions of soldiers who died as Allies of the US in WW2 fighting Germany.

In 1776, the US Founding Fathers recognized the importance of seperation of church and state.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc had a century of examination of that idea. They knew, what every leader in all history found out, that the Church will never willingly share power.
Christianity and Islam share the same goal...Global domination. There isn't any debate about that. They hold their Diety above all State power. Ask any of them if they would forsake their religion in the best interests of their nation.

Being a little bit theocratic is like being a little bit pregnant.

70. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11849 by Joadist on December 7, 2006 at 5:44 pm

Hi Tom Bennet,

Thanks for polite and reasonable comments.

Two Points:

First: Understanding the bible...There is no standard of undertanding. It is just like watching "The Matrix". Fans of that movie can discuss its plot, character, special effects ad nauseum...but the fact remains, they are all experts as to their opinion of the movie.
Anyone who has read the Bible is equally an expert with the most studious Theologian. My review of "The Matrix" is just as legitimate as one by Sikel&Ebert. Just like them, I watched the movie.

Second: Prophecy...
I prophecize that after I finish this post, I will log off. So much for Biblical prophecy. The sad part is that it took nearly 2000 years of dedicated effort to fulfill a prophecy. I would assume that a real prophecy would be much easier to fulfill.

The Bible proves God in the same manner that "Dracula" proves vampires.