Thursday, November 15, 2007

I Hate Communism and Nazism

There, I said it, just in case someone comes up with a dare for me, thinking I won't bad mouth a lot of stuff because his local clergy brainwashed him into thinking the Cold War is still going on and anyone who disagrees with him is a Rusky.

Stalin was a villain for sending people to gulags and to executions for political "crimes" like exercising free speech in favor of evolution and heredity. Stalin operated in the same manner as a theocrat, declaring this or that theory as "a bourgeois pseudoscience" for not supporting The Party. Sorry, but government officials are no more entitled to their own facts and evidence than churches are. Stalin was evil in many ways, but he was evil for the same reason the directors of Inquisitions were evil.

Lots of Communist leaders engaged in mass purges, also a very big evil that I will never condone. I'm sure all my atheist friends here will agree that such things are evil. Mass killing is also bad if done in the name of some insane racial ideology, not just because it's mass killing, but also because it makes the human gene pool even shallower than it already is. It also involves a great deal of hubris to think that we have the ability to determine superiority, since that would require calculating a dizzying number of factors. That's why Hitler was unambiguously evil, too. And stupid on the biology front, to boot.

What a lot of this boils down to is that I think the various fascist and communist tyrants are evil are for the same reason I think violent fundies of all stripes (that includes those who threaten people with invisible violence in Hell) are evil. They're the same thing with a few cosmetic changes.

The only "persecution" I'm going to do involves making fun of people in ways that typically expose their fallacious thought. Everyone agrees with me, right?

42 comments:

Mongrel said...

The only "persecution" I'm going to do involves making fun of people in ways that typically expose their fallacious thought. Everyone agrees with me, right?

Someones sig over at the JREF expressed it perfectly "Ridicule is an appropriate response to the ridiculous".

I also liked Ben Goldacres phrase regarding the latest free energy device, "Stick with me, science is fun when you’re making people look stupid."

Anonymous said...

"The people regard religion as true, the wise as false, and the rulers as useful."

The *isms are usually not inherently evil. But like any other tool, some lend themselves better to manipulation and mayhem. Give one to a murderous totalitarian leader and it's trouble.

Stalin and his contemporaries were... well, popular image doesn't quite begin to cover the evil.

Ask me if curious.

-- GM

valhar2000 said...

You hit the nail on the head! I first began to notice the parallels between religion, extremist political ideologies, fandom, and many other things when I was a teenager, and observation of these phenomena over the years has made this impression rock solid.

I find it comical, as well as sad, that people would attribute things to me, due to my lack of religion, that I find indistinguishable form religion.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Damn, what's I miss?

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Apparently English class.

What did I miss?

Bronze Dog said...

Meh. Was an ongoing collection of anonnies at Scientia Natura. It's shifted from blaming everything on "Darwinism" to a guy seriously endorsing geocentrism.

King tut said...

I have a question if you don't mind Bronze Dog.

At what point do you think science offends Christians.
I mean everyone accepts Newton, Faraday, Pascal, and so forth can you pinpoint where science and religeon divdes.

Seems to me both sides are trying to put the label of "murderer" or "evil" on each others beliefs.
Say for instance a Roman Catholic Priest deflies a young boy which we all know happens and also how they butchered over 65 million people through church history.

Then we see the christian fist being clinched at the evolutionist when some kid goes into a school a blows a number of children away and claims evolution was his motivating force as in the Finland shootings a few weeks ago.
Also Hitler, Stalin, bladie bladie bla

Seems to me to be nonsense as we both know both sides are pushing their "own truth"
Debating such things are as much use as a chocolate firegard.

I just have a picture of their contorted faces straining abd stressed with the load of trying to prove something they don't understand.
I mean it;s like a bull dog chewing a wasp.

When one side crosses into the other we seem to get the effect of two cats tied by the tails hanging over a washing line.
Their views are undoubtably linked like the cats tails but they claw the eyes out of each other.

Dikkii said...

Hey Your Majesty,

Maybe when you've read up on the points that Bronze Dog makes in this post, you'll be in a position to answer that one yourself.

In the meantime, I'll pose you a question:

A central plank of communism in practice was (and is: see China) to crush dissent.

A central plank of nazism was exterminate Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.

A central plank of the Christian church is still to ensure that unbelievers suffer painfully for eternity.

Now exactly where is science or whatever straw man you are positing have a murderous central plank which you are implying exists?

This is an easy question. And I know you know the answer.

Laser Potato said...

"I mean it's like a bull dog chewing a wasp."

aaaand the Most Awkward Analogy Of The Year Award goes to...

King tut said...

Dikkii

Answer to your simple question there is no central plank in science just evolution.

See it's how this world came to be is what makes evoultion a Faith and a very dangerous one for those who chose to believe it as Leon Trotsky did and become a ruthless dictator.

See Christianity perverted can lead to all sorts of evil trying to tag and defame that name.

Also science has the same problem good when it's science bad when it's faith you get all sorts like hitler stalin, leon trotsky and on and on it goes developing their own brand of evolution.

Always goes back to the fact that niether science nor christians can prove where matter come from.
And two nothings creating something don't cut it.
Also the theory of something that always exsisted don't do to well with the law of casuality.

King tut said...

Dikkii

By the way the whole plank thing, although I would prefer to call it a pillar so i think i will.
The pillar of the Doctrine of Hell is perfect justice to those who hate God and reject love and have more sins than they could count.

So you see God is not in the business of punishing anyone who will not resist his free offer of love.
But he will punish those who reject it as the one who does this has decided to practice evil. and must be punished for it.

Surely your not against goodness and the laws of the bible like
You shall not kill
" " " steal

Would you not be on for some Justice yourself if someone Raped or Murdered some one close to you.

See God has no pleasure in sending people to Hell but Justice demands it in the case of the guilty.

Dikkii said...

So in other words, King, you're not going to answer my question, are you?

Typical.

valhar2000 said...

THE ATHEISTS ARE COMING!!! THE ATHEISTS ARE COMING!!!!!!

King TuT said...

Dikki

What part of there is no central plank in science do you not understand?

King TuT said...

The "central plank" is faith science like evolution.
Natural selection is evil.

why was a murderer born a murderer?

Ans "natural selection" there is nothing he could have done to change that.

So the system is evil and on top of that it offers no hope to the weaker end of the gene pool.

valhar2000 said...

THE BIOLOGISTS ARE COMING!!! THE BIOLOGISTS ARE COMING!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both will get filthy and only the pig will enjoy it."

-- GM

Dikkii said...

Apologies, King. I read your comments way too quickly.

Still, you wrote this:

"there is no central plank in science just evolution"

Then you wrote this:

"The "central plank" is faith science like evolution.
Natural selection is evil."


The first weakens your whole argument completely.

The second contradicts the first.

Are you for real?

King Tut said...

Dikki

My mistake, on these blogs I tend not to expound my statements enough.

I can see how you read it, hopefully these two points will clear up any confusion.

1 Science to me is good, that is when evoultion is not present in it.
So there is NO CENTRAL PLANK in good science.

2 Science with evolution has a cenral plank and it is evolution.
Which I consider to be a faith and contarary to God, making it evil.

Yes I am very real and so is God.

Dikkii said...

GM/Anonymous, your point is well made. I feel filthy, but I can't help myself.

Berlzebub said...

Dikki, go take a shower. I'll try a hand at this.

@King Tut:

Dikki
If it's all right, pharoah, I'll try a hand at it, too.

My mistake, on these blogs I tend not to expound my statements enough.

I can see how you read it, hopefully these two points will clear up any confusion.

1 Science to me is good, that is when evoultion is not present in it.
So there is NO CENTRAL PLANK in good science.

So, attempts to find treatments and cures for diseases, including AIDS, is bad? There is ample evidence that evolution is true. You seem to think that you can pick and choose which science is good and bad, which is a false assumption. Science is about true and false, not good and bad. All you're doing is cherry picking which parts of science you're comfortable with.

2 Science with evolution has a cenral plank and it is evolution.
Which I consider to be a faith and contarary to God, making it evil.

Faith is belief without evidence, and (as I pointed out above) there is ample evidence for evolution. I've also dealt with your good/bad feelings about science. Evolution isn't contrary to God, it's contrary to your Bible. It also isn't the only piece of reality that conflicts with the book you hold in such high esteam.

Yes I am very real and so is God.
The first I can buy, but the second... Well, I doubt it.

Now, for one of your earlier comments, KT.

By the way the whole plank thing, although I would prefer to call it a pillar so i think i will.
The pillar of the Doctrine of Hell is perfect justice to those who hate God and reject love and have more sins than they could count.

How can you hate God if you don't believe he exists? Your use of Faith, and "hating God", show that you need a better understanding of atheism.

What about those of us who are good people, but simply don't believe in God? Read this and tell me if you think I'm still going to Hell, just because I don't believe in your deity of choice?

So you see God is not in the business of punishing anyone who will not resist his free offer of love.
But he will punish those who reject it as the one who does this has decided to practice evil. and must be punished for it.

This is hogwash, KT. First, you're assuming that "No God" equals "Evil". Second, you're assuming there is a God. You should also read the earlier link so you'll understand how even believing in God would not mean I would follow him.

Surely your not against goodness and the laws of the bible like
You shall not kill
" " " steal

Depends on which laws. Stealing is a bad thing, but I'm not going to put to death homosexuals and wiccans. Not everything in the Bible is good, KT. Maybe you should actually read through it, some time.

Would you not be on for some Justice yourself if someone Raped or Murdered some one close to you.
Yes, I'm all for Justice. That's why we have a court system. Are you saying that the only punishment for someone should be Hell, and not imprisonment, etc.?

See God has no pleasure in sending people to Hell but Justice demands it in the case of the guilty.
Guilty of what? According to you, if someone lives a perfectly sinless life, but doesn't believe in God they are still going to Hell. How is that punishing the guilty?

Evolution is not a "central plank" of science. If you'd actually paid attention in class, assuming you got an education, you'd understand that. Various aspects of science utilize it, but it is not a central plank.

The conflicts between religion and science aren't because of faith. They aren't even because of the people involved. The conflicts are there because of the evidence, which is what science requires. The religious isn't angry that science is proving them wrong, they're angry that they can't prove themselves right.

(P.S. Use a program, such as Word, that has grammar and spell checks. Reading your stuff is almost mind-numbing.)

King TuT said...

Dikki

"Attempts to find cures for Aids is evil."
Mate are you smoking pot.
I never said finding cures for anything was evil.

AS far as your evidence for evolution goes Micro evoultion yes but not Macro.
When I hear an ape speak, then I might take you seriously.

Dikki said

"If someone lives a perfectly sinless life."

Your actually telling me you or "someone" is sinless, hold on everybody Dikki is claiming to be Jesus Christ.
And I thought you were an Atheist.

Name one person who has never sinned.
Also try this test don't lie, steal,look upon a women lustfully,curse, get drunk,

Now see how long you keep that up for, and see if you are a sinner or not.
You are certainly not sinless in fact you just lied.

"Evoultion not central to science"

I can tell you it is taught to every student in this country.
And as far as science being true or false not good or bad goes.

To say that science is just plain true or false and has no bearing on good and evil is ludicrous.

What about child killers like the Atom Bomb, Guns, cocain, Heroine, all created by science.
Science can be evil if the scientist is evil.

It does not matter how many good works you do Dikki.
The fact is you have sinned many times in your life that means guilty as charged.
Now you ask me to judge if you will go to hell.
I can't because I am not your judge.
I sincerly hope you don't go there, because you don't have to.

What the Bible tells me is that those who don't accept the substitution of Christs death, on behalf of their own sin, will suffer hell.

Conflict of Science and Christianity.

Where there is evidence I accept Science.
This is why there is a conflict Dikki.

Creation: says in the beginning God created the universe.

Evolution: says in the beginning there was nothing, or sorry two nothings that created something.
Evoultion denies God result conflict.

Dikki said

"Not everything in the bible is good"

I never said it was.

The Bible includes men and women so therefore not all things in the bible are good.
God is love and God is good.
All things work together for good even the judgement of God.


"Putting homosexuals and witches to death"

Under the Law in the old testament you would be put to death for many reasons including the above.
To be a witch or a homosexual is a serious sin as bad as murder.
The U.S still practice the death penalty so what's your point.


We now live under Grace the sins mentioned above are no less serious but God has in his mercy removed the Law.

The sin of witchcraft and homosexuality is no problem for me in fact I know men and women who have turned from both to the Chtistian faith.

The only thing that will send anyone to Hell is their resistance to God's love and refusal to acknowledge their guilt and sin.

" How can an atheists hate a God they don't believe in"

It does not matter if it is hatred you still are in rebellion against God, no matter why you realise it or not.

I know you will ask for proof of a lot of what I say all I can say to you is God has proven himself many times to me and many others like me.

See what does science do with all the paranormal things that can't be explained?
Many of people being healed in Smith Wigglesworth's meetings and also William Branhams mettings.

See science try's to explain everything but it can't.

Your problem is Dikki your Logic will never allow you to believe in anything other than what you see and can test.

That is why you can't understand when I talk of God as if he is real.
The subjective becomes the objective, this is why somebody with logic will never find out God for himself, because it is not logic to accept a subjective doctrine.
To me he is very real I have seen things spoken in my life and my friends lives, come to pass with detailed accuracy this is the objective which follows after belief.

Also if you took time to study church history you would see men like Harry Ironside.
Also many others who told of how the Jews would come back to Jerusalem.

Also the Bible speaks from the old Testament about many things in detail including Christ's Crucifixion which was completly fullfilled in the new testament.
Now there is thousands of years between the two testaments.

I do not misunderstand what an atheist is, on the contrary it is a Faith in nothing.

I am certainly not "angry" about anything to do with the conflict of evolution and Christianity.

Infact there are so many verses in the bible concerning men who think their own understaning is enough to explain this life, and how this world was made, it is delightful.

The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Dikki you are trying to be your own god and create your own beliefs logic and morals.

You may not like me Dikki.
I have stated what I believe to be the truth and have experienced that truth objectively.

Dikkii said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dikkii said...

King Tut - you're responding to Berlezebub's comments, not mine. Please do not be putting words in my mouth.

Dikkii said...

Your pharoahness, it might be also a good idea to learn some basic comprehension skills before responding to anyone again.

Some humility might also be nice.

Peter said...

I think the point that 'King Tut' is trying, rather ineligantly, to put forth is that scientific ideas/concepts can just as easily be abused and misapplied as ideas that can be found in politics and religion. Example: the eugenics movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries used Darwin's theory of evolution to justify, among other things, claims of racial superiority and forced sterilisations of 'inferior' people (i.e. minority groups and non-conformists). Any belief system or method of enquiry, no matter how objective it tries to be, can be used by those with unsavoury ulterior motives to justify their own bigoted agenda.

Berlzebub said...

@ your pharoahness:

As dikki pointed out, you were responding to my comments, not dikki's. Apparently your reading comprehension is as bad as your grammar.

"Attempts to find cures for Aids is evil."
Mate are you smoking pot.
I never said finding cures for anything was evil.

Evolutionary biology is being used to research a cure, and to track the mutations of AIDS and several other diseases. So, if evolution is being used, according to you it must be evil.

AS far as your evidence for evolution goes Micro evoultion yes but not Macro.
Why can there be micro and not macro? If enough small changes (micro) happen, the net result is a large change (macro).
When I hear an ape speak, then I might take you seriously.
I doubt you'll ever hear them, because they don't have the vocal capability. However, there is evidence that they can use sign language. So, maybe you should be taking me seriously.

"If someone lives a perfectly sinless life."

Your actually telling me you or "someone" is sinless, hold on everybody Dikki is claiming to be Jesus Christ.
And I thought you were an Atheist.

No, Dikki wasn't, and neither was I. It was a hypothetical example, you dimwit. What I said was, "According to you, if someone lives a perfectly sinless life, but doesn't believe in God they are still going to Hell."

First, in what part of that did I ever claim to be sinless. Second, I am an atheist, therefore I don't believe in sin. Just moral, ammoral, and immoral actions.

Name one person who has never sinned.
Also try this test don't lie, steal,look upon a women lustfully,curse, get drunk,

Now see how long you keep that up for, and see if you are a sinner or not.
You are certainly not sinless in fact you just lied.

As I stated above, I never said I wasn't a sinner. I simply don't believe in your concept of sin. So, everything you've just said has been a lie. Therefore, you run the rist of your hell.

"Evoultion not central to science"

I can tell you it is taught to every student in this country.
And as far as science being true or false not good or bad goes.

Oh, really? I take it you have looked at the curriculum of every student in the country? Even in high schools, evolution is only taught in advanced biology courses, except in some of the more advanced schools. Even in college, only those curriculums dealing with advanced biology study evolution. I had nearly no evolution education, other than a little brush over during my high school years. However, I've always enjoyed science, and have read about it on my own. At the very least, I've read enough about it to know that nothing you've said about it is true.

To say that science is just plain true or false and has no bearing on good and evil is ludicrous.

What about child killers like the Atom Bomb, Guns, cocain, Heroine, all created by science.
Science can be evil if the scientist is evil.

Science, is not in and of itself evil. It's uses can be, but it is not itself.

The military dropped the A-bombs, not the scientists. Yes, the scientists did the research, but it was the military who used it. Besides, would you rather the Axis powers to have developed them first?

Guns can be used by scientists, but they weren't invented by them. They were invented by the Chinese, by accident, if I remember correctly.

Cocain, Heroine, and other drugs have been used by indigenous and aboriginal peoples for centuries for "spiritual" purposes. Eventually, someone (not necessarily a scientist) comes up with a more recreational use for them.

As I said, science is not good or evil. It's just research based on evidence. How that research is put to use can be good or evil, but the science is neutral.

It does not matter how many good works you do Dikki.
The fact is you have sinned many times in your life that means guilty as charged.
Now you ask me to judge if you will go to hell.
I can't because I am not your judge.
I sincerly hope you don't go there, because you don't have to.

Okay, you say you're not the judge, but you also say that I've sinned many times. You don't even know me. I may have sinned only once, but you decide that I've sinned many times. Make up your mind.

What the Bible tells me is that those who don't accept the substitution of Christs death, on behalf of their own sin, will suffer hell.
Really? What the Bible tells me is that there were a bunch of superstitious, homophobic, chauvinistic assholes 2,000 plus years ago.

Conflict of Science and Christianity.

Where there is evidence I accept Science.
This is why there is a conflict Dikki.

No, KT. Where science disagrees with what you want to believe, you ignore. Just like Answers in Genesis and those other moronic groups.

Creation: says in the beginning God created the universe.

Evolution: says in the beginning there was nothing, or sorry two nothings that created something.
Evoultion denies God result conflict.

No, it doesn't, KT. Evolution simply explains how life has diversified, not about how it began. If you're going to argue against something, do everyone a favor. FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ARGUING AGAINST, FIRST!

Dikki said
No Dikki didn't, I did. But we've already covered that you don't pay attention.

"Not everything in the bible is good"

I never said it was.

The Bible includes men and women so therefore not all things in the bible are good.
God is love and God is good.
All things work together for good even the judgement of God.

Xians keep saying that, but they seem to forget that their God is also vengeance, "put to death", and even jealous. None of which have to do with love or good, except in the sick mind of a believer.

"Putting homosexuals and witches to death"

Under the Law in the old testament you would be put to death for many reasons including the above.
To be a witch or a homosexual is a serious sin as bad as murder.
The U.S still practice the death penalty so what's your point.

You mean to tell me that your so brainwashed that you believe those are the same as murder? How the hell is two consenting adults of the same gender having sex the same as murder? It affects no one else, except those who are so insecure that they can't handle that other people can have different preferences but be just as happy. You're a complete waste of life, KT.

We now live under Grace the sins mentioned above are no less serious but God has in his mercy removed the Law.
Now you're just being a troll. First, you have to prove there is a God.

The sin of witchcraft and homosexuality is no problem for me in fact I know men and women who have turned from both to the Chtistian faith.
So, what? I was once a Xian, and now I'm an atheist.

The only thing that will send anyone to Hell is their resistance to God's love and refusal to acknowledge their guilt and sin.
So, if someone kills a bunch of people, but then accepts Gods love and acknowledges their guilt and sin they get off scott free? No wonder there's so many death bed conversions, just to cover their bets. Then, the only thing you have to deal with is the laws of reality, because you've already covered the ficticious ones.

" How can an atheists hate a God they don't believe in"

It does not matter if it is hatred you still are in rebellion against God, no matter why you realise it or not.

You can't rebel against someone who doesn't exist!

I know you will ask for proof of a lot of what I say all I can say to you is God has proven himself many times to me and many others like me.
Yes, I keep hearing that. It's a standard reply. So, I'll give you my abbreviated standard reply.

Confirmation bias... delusional... needs more than anecdotal evidence... etc, etc, etc.

Also, if he's so great, how come he never taught you punctuation. Mrs. Mullins, my senior year English teacher, would have seizures reading your stuff.

See what does science do with all the paranormal things that can't be explained?
Many of people being healed in Smith Wigglesworth's meetings and also William Branhams mettings.

First, you have to prove the cause of the healing was paranormal. Sometimes, things will heal with no treatment, including without prayer.

See science try's to explain everything but it can't.
You're confusing "can't" with "never will". What you seem to be saying is that we shouldn't be looking for causes when divine intervention is the simpler answer. If John Snow, Louis Pasteur, and Robert Koch had used your reasoning, we'd still think that disease just spontaneously generated.

Your problem is Dikki your Logic will never allow you to believe in anything other than what you see and can test.
How is that a problem? Because it prevents me from being a delusional moron like you? Sorry, I prefer reality over your fairy tale. It's much more interesting.

That is why you can't understand when I talk of God as if he is real.
The subjective becomes the objective, this is why somebody with logic will never find out God for himself, because it is not logic to accept a subjective doctrine.

If subjective becomes objective, we could actually test for God, dumbass. What you want to be reality does not reality make.
To me he is very real I have seen things spoken in my life and my friends lives, come to pass with detailed accuracy this is the objective which follows after belief.
Okay, let me know the next time he gives you a prediction. Make sure and do it well before the prediction, and provide documentation of the actual occurance happening.
Also if you took time to study church history you would see men like Harry Ironside.
Also many others who told of how the Jews would come back to Jerusalem.

Doesn't it say something about that in the Bible, too? Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophesy, KT?

Also the Bible speaks from the old Testament about many things in detail including Christ's Crucifixion which was completly fullfilled in the new testament.
Now there is thousands of years between the two testaments.

Prove that JC existed, was crucified, and rose as a zombie using texts other than the Bible.

I do not misunderstand what an atheist is, on the contrary it is a Faith in nothing.
I wish you Xians would make up your mind. One time you're saying "atheists have faith, too", and then the next you're saying "atheists have faith/don't believe in anything".

Actually, you're completely wrong. I have faith that when I leave here, I'll make it home without any accidents. So, I have faith in something. That makes you completely wrong.

I am certainly not "angry" about anything to do with the conflict of evolution and Christianity.

Infact there are so many verses in the bible concerning men who think their own understaning is enough to explain this life, and how this world was made, it is delightful.

The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Actually, I say there are no Gods. You just consider one less religion as mythology than I do.

Dikki you are trying to be your own god and create your own beliefs logic and morals.

You may not like me Dikki.
I have stated what I believe to be the truth and have experienced that truth objectively.

No, I don't like you. You're using a 2000 plus year old book as a moral compass, and apparently see no problems with killing homosexuals and wiccans. You're a vile human being, KT. Even if I did experience your truth, I wouldn't follow your God. He must be a hateful, conceited, and childish deity who's power has went to his head.

Berlzebub said...

@ Peter:

I think the point that 'King Tut' is trying, rather ineligantly, to put forth is that scientific ideas/concepts can just as easily be abused and misapplied as ideas that can be found in politics and religion. Example: the eugenics movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries used Darwin's theory of evolution to justify, among other things, claims of racial superiority and forced sterilisations of 'inferior' people (i.e. minority groups and non-conformists).
You've been listening to too many Christians.

Eugenics was an effort to make what they thought was a superior being. Instead of letting nature decide. You can actually look at the purebred breeds of dogs to see why that doesn't work. Health problems, mental instability, etc.
Any belief system or method of enquiry, no matter how objective it tries to be, can be used by those with unsavoury ulterior motives to justify their own bigoted agenda.
As I pointed out above, it's not the scientists who misuses the science. All KT is trying to do is make himself feel better by saying that the world is the way he wants it to be, instead of how it really is.

Bronze Dog said...

You can actually look at the purebred breeds of dogs to see why that doesn't work. Health problems, mental instability, etc.

That's why if I ever get a dog, I'll favor "mongrel" as the breed. Though I might spend a little time picking out which breed it might lean a little towards.

Dikkii said...

@ King Tut:

Yeah what Berlzebub said.

@ Bronze Dog

That's why if I ever get a dog, I'll favor "mongrel" as the breed.

I can actually see the point that some dog-owners make that choosing a particular breed of dog amounts to "canine racism".

It's mongrels which are more likely to be put down in animal shelters, they tell me.

Berlzebub said...

@ BD and Dikki:

Princess, Munchkin, and I just got a "mongrel". She's an american bulldog mix, and Munchkin loves her to death. In spite of Sophie, the dog, weighing nearly as much as Munchkin.

My BIL just got an "Australian Shepard". But we not only have a healthy and happy dog, but we got ours for free. (Another huge advantage of mongrels.)

King Tut said...

Berlzebub

The reason I thought it was Dikkii was the name "Berlzebub". I thought he had changed it, to have a go at me.

First let me address this issue of punctuation. I really don't care for your sick comments.
You don't seem to have any problem understanding what I am saying, so lets proceed.
By the why your own spelling isn't that smart, I run the "rist" of hell.

Macro Evolution:

I need examples of Macro evolution, and not caterpillers.

Berl said

"There is evidence that they can use sign language"
Sign language all that proves is a monkey can be trained, he is merely a circus performer.
And even if it is not trained, it's no better than anything else we see in creation. What a weak pathetic example.

Berl said

"they don't have the vocal capability"

So why are we not seeing this great evolution of the monkey now.
Why are we not seeing resemblances of humans in the monkey.
And when I say resemblances I mean looks and intelect.
I could however be convinced, that you may be in the early stages of evolution. Only a Baboon would rant and rave the way you do.

On homosexuality not being as serious as murder.

The FACT is, if everyone had turned Gay in the times of the Bible, the human race would have been extinct, that is of course a sin worth the death penalty.

Berl the anus is made to exit for the want of a better word "crap". Indeed it is an exit hole. All you need to do is consult a surgeon, and he will tell you about rectal damage, among gay men.
Now the anal passage did not evolve into a vagina, now that would be macro evolution.
Surley evoultion should tell you Homosexuality is wrong, because homosexual behaviour causes degeneration of mankind.
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve Berl.

"Prove Christ rose from the dead you rant and rave"
Prove to me he did not.

Well the fact is he splits History, as far as the time line goes BC/AD.
Save your breath I know you fools have tried to rewrite history by saying that AD and BC was error.
Again prove that it was.

You accuse me of lying because I said you have many sins. See you are talking rubbish you know fine well you have many sins as we all do. Thats you just being daft.

As far as evoultion being taught in schools goes. I can tell you that every school under the goverment in the uk, teach it, at basic levels, including how we come to be, and what we evolved from.

You also try to tell me that evolution does not go into our beginnings. Well I don't care for word play but the fact is science does.

You say you have "faith" that you will get home without any accidents.
Thats not Faith thats probability or chance.
You do have a faith in nothing, and the nothing is simply how the universe came to be.

Curious to know what Religion you where in, Catholic?

You don't understand about subjective and objective faith, so I won't even respond to your comments, it's wasted on you.

God is Vengeance, and Jealous. Read things in their context Berl.
All your trying to do is defile God's character.
Vengeance and Jealous at who, and what for?

As far as answers in Genesis goes wrong again, where science can prove with hard facts that something is true, i accept it.
What I don't accept is when science makes assumptions, or try's to produce evidence, that the creation created itself.
And I don't even read Creation Science so wrong again.

Berl said "all KT wants is the world the way he wants it to be instead of how it is"
And what do I want it to be?
Berl is the one caught up in a world so complex he "will never understand" it, and can't really prove that much about it.
You may not believe in sin Berl, but you have shown a few in your writings.
By your own standrds you are immoral. By God's standards you are sick, and under his wrath.

I predict that you will die. It will be documented, and if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you will be sent to the lake of fire for eternity.

That is a prophecy you will prove yourself and you will have all the evidence you need.

Dikkii said...

King, you don't know this guy by the name of "cocksnack" by any chance, do you?

Anonymous said...

And on the other paw, I do have this fine working shower...

Anyway.

Anuses and vaginas have a closer working relationship than you think. Look up what 'cloaca' is some time.

Additionally, this thread is indirect, anecdotal proof that anal sex can indeed eventually result in offspring.

-- GM

Firewalk said...

King Tut, you seem to not fully understand exactly what evolution is and how it works. There is no distinction between Macro and Microevolution, except for Creationist trying to wriggle by saying they accept one and not the other.
No definite description is ever given what seperates the two.

"So why are we not seeing this great evolution of the monkey now."

For a start, discernible effect of evolution can only really occur over a significant number of generations, and is slow where there are smaller populations or safer conditions. Monkeys' lifespans vary, but a generation is still several years: less than a human generation, but still far too little to see any notable difference throughout a species without some MAJOR impacting factor.

Even besides that, there's no reason for them to follow the same evolutionary path as we did. Somewhere in the past, speech became an advantage to human ancestors, along with an analytical brain and a need to communicate abstract concepts.

For whatever reason, (and I'm not the best person to speculate why), this did not arise as an evolutionary in other primates. Their basic capability of speech, able to communicate simple ideas such as "danger", has suited them fine, so no need to adapt vocal chords, etc.

You also don't seem to get how science as a whole works or what it is, but maybe I'll come back to that. Oh and

"Well the fact is he splits History, as far as the time line goes BC/AD."

That's because the calendar currently used was based on the estimated time of his birth. It doesn't prove he "split history" at all.

Berlzebub said...

@ your Pharoahness:

First let me address this issue of punctuation. I really don't care for your sick comments.
You don't seem to have any problem understanding what I am saying, so lets proceed.
By the why
[way?] your own spelling isn't that smart, I run the "rist" of hell.

Explain how my comments were sick, please.

And yes, I do understand some of what you’re saying, but it takes reading it multiple times in some cases.

Since you showed only one example, I'm going to [highlight] your errors, just from the comment I'm responding to, to show you how bad your spelling and grammar are.

Macro Evolution:

I need examples of Macro evolution, and not
[caterpillars]caterpillers.


Whales
Horses
and of course, Humans

Berl said

"There is evidence that they can use sign language"

Sign language all that proves is a monkey can be trained
[;], he is merely a circus performer.
And even if it is not trained, it's no better than anything else we see in creation. What a weak pathetic example.

You mean like we train our children to speak? Speech is not something we're born with, it's learned. A group with no outside involvement may even develop their own vocabulary, but I'm not sure if any studies have been done on that.

The key thing is that the apes can hold conversations using sign language, like a deaf or mute human. They may not have the full vocabulary, but it's still not just "training". They actually show evidence that they comprehend what is being said.

Berl said

"they don't have the vocal capability"

So why are we not seeing this great evolution of the monkey now.
Why are we not seeing resemblances of humans in the monkey.
And when I say resemblances I mean looks and intel
[l]ect.
I could however be convinced, that you may be in the early stages of evolution. Only a Baboon would rant and rave the way you do.

Here's a little excerpt from that link:
"Sign Language

Sign language has been chosen as the superior medium in which to conduct language instruction for primates because they are unable to vocalize language. Some researchers hold the belief that primates are simply not intelligent enough to speak. This theory has lost credence as further research with apes has demonstrated their tremendous intellectual capacities in other arenas. Another possible explanation of the inability of primates to acquire verbal language, posited by Robert Yerkes, is that Primates are not inclined towards imitation of sounds and therefore cannot learn verbal language. A final theory suggests that the vocal cords of primates are not capable of supporting the production of language."

Further, why do they need to have similar looks and intellect to humans? Evolution doesn't say that related species will be completely the same, or that the branch species will evolve to look more like the others over time. It says that each species will adapt to its environment and needs.

On homosexuality not being as serious as murder.

The FACT is, if everyone had turned Gay in the times of the Bible, the human race would have been extinct, that is of course a sin worth the death penalty.

"Turned gay"? Homosexuality is not, and never was, a communicable disease. Putting people to death because of their sexual preference is stupid. Especially, since it's a minority of the population.

How can anyone possibly conceive of two consenting adults of the same gender having sex as worthy of the death penalty? If nothing else, it means that the heterosexual males have less competition.

Berl the anus is made to exit for the want of a better word "crap". Indeed it is an exit hole. All you need to do is consult a surgeon, and he will tell you about rectal damage, among gay men.
Well, there's also vaginal tearing that happens with women. Does that mean we shouldn't be having sex with them, either?

Also, both genders urinate out of their sexual organs.
Now the anal passage did not evolve into a vagina, now that would be macro evolution.
Surley evoultion should tell you Homosexuality is wrong, because homosexual behaviour causes degeneration of mankind.
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve Berl.

No it wouldn't, KT. Human females already have a vagina. So, what's the point in morphing the anus into one?

Homosexuality is not wrong. A persons sexual preference has no bearing on what sort of person they are.

If homosexuality cause the degeneration of mankind, why do we still exist? Even your Bible shows that homosexuality existed during the time it was written. Since it was never eradicated, and we still thrive, it must have no bearing on our survival.

"Prove Christ rose from the dead you rant and rave"
Prove to me he did not.

Okay. I believe he didn't rise from the grave. That's the same as your proof that he did.

You're the one making the assertion of a supernatural event. Unless you can provide me with more than one source of it, I'll consider it fiction. None of the other sources can reference the Bible, either.

Well the fact is he splits History, as far as the time line goes BC/AD.
Save your breath I know you fools have tried to rewrite history by saying that AD and BC was error.
Again prove that it was.

Actually, even some Christians say that the zero date was incorrect.

Also, the time "divide" wasn't even invented until 525 AD. After Christianity was established, and the BC/AD calendar was invented by a Christian. So, it's self-referencing. Therefore, it's not evidence.

You accuse me of lying because I said you have many sins. See you are talking rubbish you know fine well you have many sins as we all do. Thats you just being daft.
Then tell me what sins I've done, not couting the not believing in God one. You're assuming that I've done some of your sins, or more than Christians have.

Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible to "judge not lest ye be judged?"

As far as evoultion being taught in schools goes. I can tell you that every school under the goverment in the uk, teach it, at basic levels, including how we come to be, and what we evolved from.
I'm in the U.S. So, that's a moot point.

You also try to tell me that evolution does not go into our beginnings. Well I don't care for word play[,] but the fact is science does.
So, gravitational theory tries to explain why dogs like to urinate on fire hydrants?

It's not "word play", KT. Here's the definition of it.
evolution

b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations;
also : the process described by this theory

Here's what you said:
"Evolution: says in the beginning there was nothing, or sorry two nothings that created something."
That is not evolution. It's not even descriptive enough to figure out if you’re talking about the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

You really don't understand a thing that you're talking about, do you?

You say you have "faith" that you will get home without any accidents.
That
[‘]s not Faith that[‘]s probability or chance.

Actually, it is faith. I've went for several years without an accident, but the longer I go without one the greater the likelihood that one will happen. So, I do have faith that I won't be in an accident. I'll even say that I have faith that I won't be in an accident, today.
You do have a faith in nothing, and the nothing is simply how the universe came to be.
You have absolutely no clue do you? The theory I've found the most interesting is that there may have been a universe that existed prior to this one. Our current one happened after that universe collapsed and then exploded in the Big Bang. Maybe this isn't the first universe, and won't even be the last. It could just be a cycle of birth, death, rebirth, etc. that will go on forever.

Curious to know what Religion you where in, Catholic?
Nope. Wife's RC, but I was born and raised Pentecostal.

You don't understand about subjective and objective faith, so I won't even respond to your comments, it's wasted on you.
By definition faith can't be objective. So, maybe you need to rethink what you're calling faith.

God is Vengeance, and Jealous. Read things in their context Berl.
All your trying to do is defile God's character.
Vengeance and Jealous at who, and what for?

Well, I think he's a fiction, and everything said in the Bible was projection by those who authored the different gospels. However, you can ask him, can't you. He said it, but I'm just telling you what he said.

As far as answers in Genesis goes wrong again, where science can prove with hard facts that something is true, i accept it.
What I don't accept is when science makes assumptions, or try's to produce evidence, that the creation created itself.
And I don't even read Creation Science
[.] [S]o[,] wrong again.

I didn't say you read it. I said that all of your arguments parrot creationism.

Berl said "all KT wants is the world the way he wants it to be instead of how it is"
And what do I want it to be?

You "want it to be" created by some fictious deity, and perform mental gymnastics to avoid anything that shows otherwise. Am I wrong? If I am, what would your reaction be if you found out that evolution is true? Don't give me the "It isn't, so it doesn't matter" answer. I want to know what will happen for you if proof, that even you can't deny, is found that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Berl is the one caught up in a world so complex he "will never understand" it, and can't really prove that much about it.
The only thing I don't understand is people like you who think they know what my viewpoint is.

Yes, the universe is complex, but I make an effort to understand it. That's what life is about. Learning more about it, so you can pass that on to the next generation, and they can improve it even more. I know more about how the world really works that anyone born in the time that your precious book was written.

For instance:
Lightning - Electrical discharge from clouds caused by the electron build up of water and dust particles bouncing off each other. Not a deity's power.

You may not believe in sin Berl, but you have shown a few in your writings.
By your own stand
[a]rds you are immoral. By God's standards you are sick, and under his wrath.

Sin, schmin.

How am I immoral by my own standards? Is it because I'm calling you on what you're saying? That's part of my morals.

I'm glad that I don't meet your god's standards. If I did, I'd be worried about my mental stability.

I predict that you will die. It will be documented, and if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you will be sent to the lake of fire for eternity.
I predict that if I drop an object of specific mass from a specific height, I can calculate how hard it will hit the ground. I'll bet that I can prove my prediction before you can yours.

That is a prophecy you will prove yourself and you will have all the evidence you need.
Blah blah... Hell fire... damnation... after you die...

If the only time I'll be finding evidence of your deity's existance is after I day, there goes your assertion that he's a loving and just God.

Berlzebub said...

Correction:

If the only time I'll be finding evidence of your deity's existance is after I [die] day, there goes your assertion that he's a loving and just God.

Oops.

King Tut said...

Berl

Have a look at this Berl.
It is various history writings, in regards to Christ, written outside of the bible.

www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

I bet you were in a nut job pentecostal church.
Did you have a bad experience in church, or did you just simply reject the bible through deduction?

As far as homosexuals go, I believe we are all born in sin, and some people will favour certain sins like homosexuality.
But I also believe that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a man or women, that man or women's desire changes and they no longer desire to do such things.

As far as your sin goes Berl,I asked you before and please be honest.
Have you ever stolen, lusted, took drugs, fornicated, got drunk etc.

I would say I have done them sins, and more thousands of times before I was a Christian.
Even now I still sin, but by God's grace I have come a long way and continue in that grace and cleansing.

See I don't claim to be better than you, no way, I was into all sorts before a turned to Christ.

As far as judging goes, I don't judge you, but God word does, as it judges me.

Listem Berl I do respect your knowledge, and do hope whatever you do in life your happy.
I just wish you could see and feel like I do, and I also wish you could experience some of the things I have experienced, then may be you would believe.

I guess I will always see things as good and evil, and right and wrong, rather than science facts.

A subjective faith is simple belief, an objective faith is a faith that causes a result like healing or a chage in your character.

May you find life take care.

KT

Berlzebub said...

Berl

Have a look at this Berl.
It is various history writings, in regards to Christ, written outside of the bible.

www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

Thanks, KT. What I've read so far is very interesting. You wouldn't know of sites that independently confirm other biblical occurences, would you. Such as the infamous "first-born" plague.

I bet you were in a nut job pentecostal church.
Are you saying they weren't true Xians? Best be careful about that, KT.
Did you have a bad experience in church, or did you just simply reject the bible through deduction?
A little of both plus more, actually, but it's a story that spans 30+ years.

I also periodically attended Baptist churches, and Catholic nuns came by my elementary school once a month.

As far as homosexuals go, I believe we are all born in sin, and some people will favour certain sins like homosexuality.
But I also believe that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a man or women, that man or women's desire changes and they no longer desire to do such things.

If we're born in sin, what happens to babies that die before they can "accept" JC? There's a number of questions, such as that one, that led me to think that if there was a God, the Bible didn't explain him well enough. Eventually, I found that the world worked exactly the same as I would expect it to if there were no God. That's a simplified explanation, but as close as I can get without writing a book.

As far as your sin goes Berl,I asked you before and please be honest.
Have you ever stolen, lusted, took drugs, fornicated, got drunk etc.

stolen: No
lusted: Yes. If not, I wouldn't have married her.
took drugs: Does nicotine and caffeine count? If not, no.
fornicated: I'm married with a kid. Of course I have.
got drunk: Yes
etc.: I'm not sure how to answer this one.

I have a few wiccan, and homosexual friends, who I haven't killed. I've sat on the same seat that my wife did, while she was on her period.

I'm sure there are quite a few other "sins" (i.e. breaking God's laws) that I've done. However, sins are completely separate from my morals. I look at how what I do affects other people, and base it on that.

I would say I have done them sins, and more thousands of times before I was a Christian.
Even now I still sin, but by God's grace I have come a long way and continue in that grace and cleansing.

Lying is wrong. It's a selfish act, and it has a tendency to need more lies to continue covering it up. So, that I agree with.

How is lusting after a woman a sin, unless you act on it? It seems more like a guilt trip, just to prove that nobody's perfect. It's like telling someone not to breath.

Taking drugs, unless it negatively affects other people, is ammoral. It's your body, and you're free to do with it what you will. I've never taken drugs, but that doesn't mean that I'll hold it against friends who do.

Fornication just means sex. It doesn't matter who with. Even adultery only deals with a married person having sex with someone outside their marriage. Which, I think is immoral. It betrays the one you are married to, who trusts you.

Drinking is one I've really never understood. A single glass of a "beverage" is enough to have an affect on most people, and how often in the bible do they drink wine? Drinking and putting others in danger because of it, is wrong. However, if there's something wrong with having a good time with friends, then the Last Supper was a sin.

See I don't claim to be better than you, no way, I was into all sorts before a turned to Christ.
If you're not better than me, why must I be "saved"? That's the thing. By saying I need to be saved to be a good person, you are saying you're better than me.

As far as judging goes, I don't judge you, but God word does, as it judges me.
As I've pointed out above, you do judge me. All because of a book written so long ago that I wonder how it can even apply today. Sure, there are a few good things in it, but that doesn't make the whole thing true.

Listem Berl I do respect your knowledge, and do hope whatever you do in life your happy.
I just wish you could see and feel like I do, and I also wish you could experience some of the things I have experienced, then may be you would believe.

Sincerely, I thank you for that, KT. I am happy, too. Happier than I've ever been, in fact. If I had stuck to the religion I grew up in, I'd never have married my wife. Which means I wouldn't have the wonderful daughter and life that I have now.

I might believe, if I had your experiences. I doubt it, though. Remember, I was a believer for a vast majority of my life so far. I did experience quite a few things, but I still became an atheist.

I guess I will always see things as good and evil, and right and wrong, rather than science facts.
So do atheists. We don't even use scientific facts to analyze good and evil. We use our morals, just like you. However, our morals aren't dictated from a book. Just from our own feelings on the subject.

Good/evil, right/wrong will always be subjective. In order to decide which is which, you have to develop a criteria to examine any actions. Even among atheists, right and wrong isn't always exactly the same, just like with Xians.

A subjective faith is simple belief, an objective faith is a faith that causes a result like healing or a chage in your character.
By definition, as I've pointed out before, faith has to be subjective. If you believe in something, without evidence, it's easier to apply any changes to you or those around you to that belief. You can't prove that faith has healed anyone anymore than I can prove your God doesn't exist.

May you find life take care.
Same to you, KT.

As a note to other Xians, notice how the exchange improved when KT became more rational. People will respond to you in the manner that you speak to them.

King Tut said...

Berl

I don't have any other sites I can link you to, at the moment.
Thanks for taking the time to read it.

On your point about true and false christians, there is no doubt there are nut job churches, I have been in a few, I simply weigh them up with the bible, and common sense.

My wife grew up in a church, and it was nuts, in fact cultic in some respects, she vowed never to go near religeon ever again.

Now this is something you may not except, but a man that she never new, came up to her in Tesco supermarket, and told her that she could have the three things she asked for, if she would believe and follow Christ.
She had hit a real bad patch in her life, and found herself praying to a God she had come to hate, because of the abuse she went through.
Now she asked for three very specfic things, that no one new off. But this man was able to tell her exactly what they were.

Now I know you may reject that, but I just tought I would mention it.

On your point about babies who never get the chance to repent. I have to say it is a fair point, and very hard to answer.
The only thing I know out of the bible that helps, is where David who was a man after God's own heart, had a child taken from him in Judgement for his sin.
David mourned, and then said he would see his child again.
Also in John where it says every child is lit by the light of God.

Although I believe every person is born in sin, and in need of a saviour, I do believe there are certain exceptions to that, like babies and the disabled etc.
Now I know you probably know that already.
So sorry if it dose not meet your needs, it's the best I can do.

Your view on sin is selective in what is a sin, you look at it on how it will effect others, and judge if it is a sin or not.
The problem with humans deciding on what is moral, and what is sin, is problematic.
The reason it is problematic is because I could decide that lets say murder was ok, in certain cases like killing someone, who was just a pain to soceity.
Now someone else could think that that was not ok.
As far as the harsh laws of the old testament go, they were to show the effects of sin, and how serious it is.
As for me I thank God we are now kept through Christ, that is what makes grace so wonderful to a christian.

As for me saying I am better than you, no not at all.
Yes salvation is a requirement for a right standing with God, but it is a gift to all men and women.
The idea that you cannot be good without salvation is wrong.
Common grace is shown to all men regardless of who belives.
Salvation is granted to those who believe, when convicted through the Spirit (effectual grace).

Now when a man is saved. he should be living a Holy life, but that is not perfection, nor does the bible teach pefection.
It is just simply that instead of the measure of grace afforded to all men, you get more grace because you have accepted God's provision.
That removes the barrier of sin between you and God and we then are at peace with him.
That is all, nothing more nothing less.
I no more worthy than you to recieve it.

On the issue of sin, and looking at a women lustfully.
That is fine as far as your wife goes, but not other women.
The reason the bible tells us not to do it is because, once you start looking, you then start thinking, and then before you know it your cheating on your wife.
I see a lot of these things as protective to us.
My faith is simply God's grace, I am not required to try and work and keep this law and that law, and beat myself up.
It is just about recieving grace, and letting it work through you, changing your life as you go.

It's been great Berl I have learned a lot about myself here.
For one an atheist does not have horns and a pitch fork.

I am truely sorry you have had to experience Bad church, It makes me so angry.
Altough I will say this, there will be lots of people in heaven, who have rebelled against church, for the right reason's, may be people like yourself.
I for one would love to see you and shake your hand on that day.
And if you never return to religeon, I do hope your life remains blessed, I mean that.

Berl

I can tell in your writings that you are a fair man, and a family man, which I commend you for.

P.S I have also learned not to argue with people are more intelligent.

I wee man like me growing up in the troubles of N Ireland, did'nt get much of an education.
Their was to many bombs going off.
Suppose I should really hate religeon for what it done to our country, but I seen the truth in the midst of it all.
Or should I say I believe I have the truth, I do not want to insult anyone here my approach on this blog has been wrong.
To all who where offended I appologise.

King Tut

Berlzebub said...

KT:

I believe we've both come to the conclusion that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. However, I believe we have both come a better understanding of the other.

The only differences between us seems to be mainly philosophy and education. Well, that and geographic location.

It's been a pleasure speaking with you. If you are right, I too hope I get to shake your hand. If I'm right, I expect that your rational discorse with me tranfers to the world off the internet, and you will still live on through your deeds to others.

P.S I have also learned not to argue with people are more intelligent.

I wee man like me growing up in the troubles of N Ireland, did'nt get much of an education.
Their was to many bombs going off.

As you point out, I think, inadvertantly, percieved intelligence is often just a difference in education. I take back some of my earlier comments about your spelling and grammar. In hindsight, it was irresponsible of me and irrelevant to our discussion. You were correct that I could get the general meaning of what you were saying.

You have my sympathies with what you went through. I've never went through anything of the degree you have, but we've all at least indirectly seen how cruel mankind can be to their own, for irrelevant differences.

Or should I say I believe I have the truth, I do not want to insult anyone here my approach on this blog has been wrong.
To all who where offended I appologise.

Saying that you believe you have the truth is more apology than most of us non-believers ever receive. So, I accept your apology, and offer my own for the same.

Between atheists and believers, it's almost inevitable that there will be perceived insults. The differences between points of view makes it very difficult for it to be otherwise.

Should you ever feel the urge to, you're welcome to stop by my blog. If nothing else, you can actually prove that you know an atheist. Maybe even as some point, we can consider each other cyber-friends. *wink*

@ BronzeDog:
Sorry for hijacking the thread with our debate. If KT and I require any further discourse, I'll request that he post it on my blog.

King Tut said...

Berl

Thankyou for your mature, and kind response.
And I do thank you for your invite.

I might just take you up on that.

Take care my friend.