New Comments From An Old Post Need A New Post

Over two years ago I did a post called Kirk Cameron: Lying For Jesus. It is still a popular hit on Google even though the video is no longer available. I get comments on the post now and again. But it looks like a Fundy now wants to engage me. So I will simply put up the last two comments by him with my one response sandwiched between it. I will also add a new comment at the end, addressing his or her last comment. Confused? It isn't confusing.
*************************************************************

hisway said...

Who is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in. In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close. When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you. Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind? Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking.
15 August, 2008 22:29
*****************************************************


Baconeater (aka The Atheist Jew aka me) said...

Who is fooling who? When one can look at something with a completely non-biased opinion then you can speak against what you firmly believe in.
**********************
I'm totally unbiased when it comes to facts. I used to assume God existed for example. I then asked questions and I found that God was not needed to answer any of them.

In your biased opinion they are lying however I am still waiting for that pile of junk that has been sitting in my grandfathers pasture for decades to turn into a Porsche and it is not even close.
***************************
Junk doesn't turn into a Porsche unless something supernatural were to occur. And I have yet to see something supernatural occur. It would go against science for that to happen. If it did, it would turn me into a believer.

When you claim someone is wrong then it must mean that you have absolute proof of your claim, meaning that beyond a shadow of a doubt you know this to be 100% accurate in which case you become the very one that you are denying and if that is the case then speed up the evolutionary progress on that Porsche for me would you.
****************************
It is the side of Godidiots that would expect junk to turn into a Porsche, not anyone who understands science. They are embarrassments to rational human beings. I think they know they are lying, but their faith won't allow them to admit it.


Since you have already determined that any such evidence to prove evolution is false, then there can be no intelligent discourse on the matter because your intellect is clouded. In order to be a free thinker one must be willing to accept the fact that their hypothesis could in fact be wrong of course in your thinking this is not possible so therefore you limit your intellect by limiting the realm of reason. Who really are the blind leading the blind?
*************************
If there was evidence against evolution, it would be overwhelming by now. The fact is that there hasn't been one piece of evidence or scientific study that refutes evolution or that even leads to a possible other explanation. Again, there would be tons, if evolution were false.

Is it you or them because as they have opened up for others to provide proof of evolution, those who believe in such refuse to accept proof of creation and while scientist who have discovered findings that lead towards creation are quickly discounted and evidence suppressed because it does not fit into mainstream thinking. You see being closed minded is not one sided it goes both ways, which is why this comment will probably never make your site and if it does it will never be met with rational thinking. Of course the main issue with most of your posters is that If they (Kirk and Ray) are correct then that would mean judgment is conceivable and if that be the case then most of us are in major trouble. That is looking at the 2-20% of inaccuracy that one has in their thinking.
************************
Oh, I'm not close minded. If the earth was young there would be overwhelming evidence. Scientists would be able to show over and over again that the earth is young.

BTW, many people who accept evolution also believe in God. They are able to separate fact and faith.

It is disingenuous people like Kirk and Ray, who avoid the evidence to try to fit garbage into a book of crapola written by man for man.

Also, I doubt Jesus ever existed. You are wasting your time praying to a mythological figure. You might as well pray to the Cat in the Hat.
15 August, 2008 22:50
****************************************************


hisway said...

First off I thank you for your comments. I found them to be both challenging and invigorating. I enjoy stimulating logical thinking.

However even from your comments you have proved the bias in your conversation and comment regarding my statements by again refusing to accept any evidence for a young earth and just as something evolved from nothing my car should eventually turn into something better which I do agree it never will. As for your comment of Jesus never existing there is more evidence of His existence then what you would even like to acknowledge. His existence has been documented by many during His life on earth, not only by the bible but historians of His time, as well as governmental documents and if you are going to throw out the evidence for His existence you would have to do the same for Aristotle or Alexander. In many of the documentation written at that time they not only acknowledged His existence but also many of the miracles that He had performed even Pilate's own wife corresponded with a friend after their expulsion from Jerusalem regarding the trial. Evidence does lie within the eye of the beholder and while you choose to believe the evidence that you see to support your hypothesis I may see it as supporting my own beliefs. The truth is this, I can guarantee you one thing and that is this, it is a fact there is no denying it you will die. It is 100% proven that this will happen. At that moment you will know who was right. I am not trying to convince you of anything nor am I out to prove a point. I simply am stating that by refusing to accept ALL evidence, not just what is provided by the acceptable party you therefore limit your intellect and your wisdom. Then again the most obvious answers are not the first ones seen. Again, thank you for the discourse.
18 August, 2008 13:38
******************************************************

My newest response:

First off, evolution doesn't state that something evolved from nothing. You need to understand evolution theory before making claims that scientists don't make.

There is no evidence for a Young Earth. If the earth was young, there would be an over abundance of evidence, that could be tested over and over again and it would fit it with other sciences as well. The reality is there is no evidence whatsoever that indicates the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

There is absolutely no contemporary evidence that corresponds with the existence of a historical Jesus. Now, it is you who is lying for Jesus. Just because you write something ie about government evidence, doesn't mean it is true.

No such proof of Pilate or Pilate's wife recognizing Jesus exists either. More lying for Jesus, perhaps???

We all will die. That is a fact of life. You can choose to waste your life worshiping a mythological figure. I choose to accept facts, and accept reality. That makes this life more precious for me, than your life on earth is for you....at least in theory.

For the record, an ancient earth and evolution being fact does not mean that Jesus didn't live or have special powers or that there is no life after death (though there is absolutely no evidence for either Jesus or life after death).

What are you doing about covering the bases if the Muslims are right? At best, Christians get to rot in limbo, if not hell, depending on the cleric you talk to.

Here is a refutation of the "laughable" lies the Comfort and Cameron spew regarding evolution:

Check Out Kafir Girl

If you want to have some really good laughs at the expense of religion, and more specifically, Islamic belief, check out Kafir Girl.

From Wikipedia:

Kafir is an Arabic word meaning "rejecter" or "ingrate." In the Islamic doctrinal sense, the term refers to a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth that Islam is the deen, God (Allah) is the one and only and the prophethood of Muhammad when clear proof has been shown to him / her. In cultural terms, it is seen as a derogatory term used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, apostate from Islam and even between Muslims of different sects. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "unbeliever." which is not the true meaning of Kafir.

Kafir Girl is reading the Koran and reporting about her findings on her blog. She has an FAQ page. Read it. I said fucking read it.

I know I've written about the mythological Jesus and Moses quite a few times, but a few comments on Kafir Girl's blog has now led me to ponder if Mohammed aka Muhamed aka Mohammad aka Muhammed aka Mohamed aka Muhammad really existed.

The Koran was written 100 years "after the fact." That is the first clue that perhaps the illiterate cave man was fictional. I always thought that there was proof outside of the Koran to back up a historical Mo, but apparently, I might be wrong.


Some serious stuff

The Last Amazon recently wrote a post on the harsh treatment a writer, Howard Rotberg, has received. Rotberg was attempting to do a lecture on his most recent book, The Second Catastrophe. It is a fictional book, that uses real history as a back drop.

From his experience at Chapters:

"I now realize that I was in Canada, where only politically correct speech is protected." -Howard Rotberg


Dangerous protesters, can affect free speech by intimidating speakers. Many Muslims know this, and they are using it to try to silence the truth.

I Guess This Is For One Of My Dead Grandmothers?

I think all of us internet atheists who put their email out there wind up getting emails by religious folk who think they have the answers. I get my share, and usually I get the bible thumper to go away after 2 or 3 exchanges. I just throw facts out there and destroy their argument. Like I said, it usually works. Well, not this time.

I had what turned out to be a disingenuous Godidiot. His deceit was evident as soon as he dismissed my first reply.

I will not include his name, because I'm just not that type of guy. He'll just be GI (Godidiot) and I'll be Bacon.

Here is the exchange:

Title of email: origins of judiaism (ed. note: perhaps the author wasn't sure where to put the "i" in Judaism, so he covered his bases)

GI: you claim in your blog that theists are always the ones that need to bring the proof. Orthodox Jews have always pointed to the kuzari principle to claim a logical proof for their beliefs. As a jewish athiest, i'm sure you have researched this claim and managed to find some solid disproofs. I have been looking for a very long time for a good reason why the kuzari principle is bogus, and i'm hoping you have some idea.

Thanks!
*************************************************
Ed. Note: I know this argument from before, but I quickly did a Wikipedia search just to refresh my memory. I quickly had solid disproofs for the KP.
Just one more thing, just because I'm an atheist Jew doesn't mean I have to have researched anything about Judaism (though I have). My atheism stems from the fact that there is no evidence for God, and no one has to investigate any or all the ridiculous claims made by theists of any following.

Bacon: Lots of evidence against it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzari_Principle

Just recently a book was written by an author featured on Oprah. Millions of people believed his story to be true, however it took the Smoking Gun to come along and show that he was embellishing some of it, and lying about the rest.
That is one example of how easy it is to dupe the public very quickly.
The Kuzari principal fails just based on historical findings alone. The history of the Jews was made up and accepted around 450 BC, but the myths were most likely gradually accepted prior to that over time.
**********************************************************

GI: thanks for the article! sadly, I don't see anything hugely conclusive. The oprah story doesnt seem to compare, because, unlike the bible, that book didn't propose anything of any consequence to its readers lives. Duping millions of people into believing that their ancestors publicly witnessed a miracle, and that they have to follow a plethora of laws seems much harder to do.
********************************************
Ed. Note: Notice how he asked for solid disproofs? I should have know. Like asking for solid disproofs of God, he is asking for conclusive evidence for a negative. This is where I should have figured out he was disingenuous.

Bacon: GI, I don't think it was hard to do. And it wasn't millions of Israelis who believed in a fake history. It was much less.
It only takes a few to begin with first, and then all of a sudden it is assumed by almost all. There was little available back then to disprove a claim.
All religions are started on the premise of a miracle. By the year 400 AD, most people in the Roman Empire started accepting that Jesus rose from his grave. And there is no contemporary history to even support a historical Jesus. Now there are almost 2 billion people on the planet who accept Jesus as the son of God.
It really takes one person to make up a viable story, and a story that people want to believe, and then it takes a few believers, and a generation or two, and then history can be rewritten.

If you watch the Bible Unearthed videos I linked on my site, you'll see that the Exodus story was impossible based on evidence alone.
*************************************************

GI: i really appreciate your answering me, but i still think your example lacks parallel. If i told you that your great great great grandfather built a spaceship and went to mars and back, would you accept it as your family history? Even without proof you will never accept such a story. If someone told you that your great great great grandfather and two million other people witnesses a great miracle and was commanded to pass down a retelling of that event to his descendants, would you accept it? Clearly you would not because you would have been told about it. So how is it possible that this fake history could ever be accepted, let alone spread? (and take note that at the time of ezra people kept family records and history).

would anybody accept a history that says "your great great grandfather saw a huge miracle" when they themselves had never head of it from their grandfather, of father? of cSurely something so great would
***********************************************

Bacon: I've already explained parallels and gave examples. How do we know when the story was started? It could have easily been started around 750 BC or even later, and then still generations upon generations could have reported the fake history to each other.
The fact is that there weren't millions of Israelis even around 1000 BC.
And more importantly, the historical finds do not support the Exodus in any way shape or form. The Bible Unearthed videos show that.
Keep believing what you need to, but I'm convinced the Exodus didn't happen 100%. There is no evidence that Jews were even monotheistic until around 600 BC or so. If the story was retold from a real starting point there would be abundant evidence to back up the myth.
***********************************************

GI: hmm...you don't seem to get what I'm saying. Your examples James Frey/Jesus just aren't parallels. Here, I'll spell out what a parallel would be: a nation that claims that their ancestors publicly witnessed a miracle (hint: there are none others). If the Sinai claim "could have easily been started" then there should be many examples to choose from.

http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm
(see the bottom, 'An attempt to meet the challenge')

*******************************************
Ed. Note: I did read the link provided, and also read a few links refuting Gottlieb's "line of reasoning." This link is very good, showing how bogus the KP really is.

Bacon: Every example is unique. There is no evidence the Exodus ever happened. None whatsoever. To believe otherwise is to be wilfully ignorant.
Again, the similarities with respect to Greek Gods, Jesus (who never existed) and had many witnesses as well (or so they say).
So what about the Exodus myth? It is mind numbingly simple. Around 650 BC or so, a few Israelites invented a past, the myth grew, over time it was believed that millions left Egypt and since by 450BC the time of Ezra, 200 years had past, it was easy to say that it was passed on from generation to generation.

Sorry, but the historical findings make the Exodus IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, my answer is the correct one.

You aren't going to change my mind on this. The idea of the Exodus happening to me, is laughable, and the explanation of saying millions of Jews from 1300 BC until now passed the story along unbroken is farcical at best.
They passed it around alright...starting around 450 BC, because enough people said they heard it from the grannies and granpas back then.

Here is more debunking that you can spin all you want:

http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2006/01/debunking-kuzari.html
****************************************

GI: You repeated your argument without responding to the link I gave you which discusses your theory in the section called 'AN ATTEMPT TO MEET THE CHALLENGE'. Please comment on his logic.
****************************************
Ed. Note: My patience has now worn thin!!!!

Bacon: GI, I'm done with this. It is farcical. I read the link, and the conclusions are just wilful ignorance times 1000.
The Exodus did not happen. Deal with it.
I've spent waaaay too much time with you on this. You just don't want to get it.
*******************************************

GI: If you had bothered to notice I was not trying to convince you of anything, just trying to elicit an intelligent response to specific points. Must have been my mistake for assuming that a person who writes a blog about a subject would have any balls to defend it.

Bye
********************************************

Bacon: I did defend it. With the Wikipedia article. And then with a blog post on the subject by someone else. But you have to be too wilfully ignorant to accept those rebuttals, even though they make perfect sense, and totally crush the idiotic 11th Century argument for why the Exodus must be fact.

The Exodus didn't happen, and the Kuzari Principal is complete hogwash that makes false assumptions and ridiculous conclusions.
*******************************************

GI: Oh, I'm so sorry honey, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings...

Being petulant wont get you anywhere, and what don't you get about the word "bye"?
********************************************

Bacon: The day I let a wilfully ignorant person dictate when bye time is, is the day after I take my last breath.
You are the one acting like a little girl btw, not me.
****************************************

GI: you sound like you want to be put on some spam mailing lists, but I hope I wont have to resort to that.

or will I?
****************************************

Bacon: My next blog post will be about our exchange. Don't worry, I won't use your name.
*************************************

GI: I'm sure your grandmother will enjoy it.


For those of you who are link adverse. Here is the 12th Century Kuzari Argument:

To summarize, the Kuzari Argument states that while oral traditions of private revelations can be fabricated, oral traditions of national public revelations must be considered authentic. The reasoning is that people will reject false beliefs of their ancestors witnessing supernatural events on the basis that if the events did occur, they would have heard about them from the previous generation. To clarify what this means, consider the following three scenarios.

(a) A population believes that many years ago, one or several people witnessed the same supernatural events and reported it to the population's ancestors. The occurrence of these supernatural events cannot be verified, since a few people could easily have been misled to believe they saw something that they really didn't, or they could have lied about witnessing the events. A gullible population who believes their story is not proof that the events indeed occurred.

(b) A population believes that many years ago, another entire population witnessed supernatural events in the past. The population who witnessed the events are not the ancestors of the more recent population, and the events are only believed today because it was reported by one or several people sometime after the supposed events have occurred. Like the previous scenario, this scenario cannot be verified, since the credibility of the events rely on the credibility of a few individuals.

(c) This scenario is similar to the previous scenario. However, the population who witnessed the supernatural events are believed to be the ancestors of the more recent population. The belief is that from the time of the events until the more recent population, there has been an unbroken collective oral tradition of the events occurring. The Kuzari Argument says that these beliefs could not have been fabricated. The reasoning is that for these beliefs to be false, at some point in history a person or a group of people would have had to convince an entire population that their ancestors witnessed supernatural events. The population would reject this belief on the basis that if their ancestors truly had witnessed supernatural events, they would have already heard about it through an oral tradition from their parents. Since none of the population would have heard about the events from their parents as expected, they would reject that the events had occurred.

The Kuzari Argument is applied to the miracles in the Torah as follows. Millions of religious Jews believe today in the miracles of the plagues, the manna, and the Sinai revelation. For these beliefs to be false, at some point in history one or several people must have presented the beliefs to the Jewish population as truth. Since a population would not accept a story that their ancestors witnessed supernatural events but they never heard about it, the Jewish population would have undoubtedly rejected the belief. Therefore, the miracles described in the Torah must have occurred.

Why Are Some Of Us Atheists?

This is just a quickie post. The other day I caught myself wondering why some of us humans are atheists, and many of humans are not.
OK, I know there have been studies that give atheists a bit of a collective edge over theists when it comes to IQ and education, but still, there are quite a few theists who are pretty dog darn smart. Some are even smarter than me. Did I say that?

Yeah, I realize the common answer is that faith is separate from intelligence. I still don't buy that fully.

Why did I make the leap into realizing that there is no evidence that God exists, and that the world makes perfect sense without even considering a God, when I have siblings who believe in God (though none are religious)?

It brings me to the idea that atheists might have a different prewiring in our brains. Atheism might be predominant for certain personality types as well. Most atheists I know have a tendency to be analytical, and even over-analytical (and I'm not saying this as if it were a bad thing). I remember being on a date in my early twenties, and the girl looked into my eyes and said "you are always thinking, aren't you?" I thought that was odd, but maybe many of us atheists think a lot more than theists do.

Atheism still has to be mostly a product of nurture. Still, I wonder if I was forced to go to Hebrew school and if my parents were deeply religious, would I too be a theist today?

A study done in 2005, seems to indicate that spirituality might be more influenced by genetics. It doesn't explain why I am the only atheist out of 6 (my parents, my two brothers and one sister). In our household we always assumed God existed, and that is how we were brought up.

To atheists like myself, it is almost silly now to consider God as being real. And I'm very content with my world view today. But I wonder still, why me?

A Whale Of A Tale

Great whale evolution video (only 7 minutes long).

The one thing I'm not sure of is the time line. When did the scientist community conclude that whales evolved from land animals. We've known about the vestigial hind limbs for quite some time, I thought. And we also know that all mammals trace back to a nocturnal shrew (weasel) like land animal that co-existed with dinosaurs.
I always thought it was a gimme.

What was really interesting in the following video, is the motion of water mammals versus the motion of fish. I never actually thought about the difference before.

Still, creationists keep denying reality, and will continue to do so, even after viewing documentaries like this. Just amazing.


Famous Catholic scientist Dr. Ken Miller also give creationists a boot in the head in this video: