I see Jesus.

Seriously, a few weeks ago I saw a dog like the one in that famous photo. Its ass really did look like Jesus. I was quite impressed.

Edit: Yay for inappropriate page-openers. :P

Then by my standards of morality gods an ass. We can only live by our own morality or we have nothing.

That's OK for me, considering I don't believe he exists.

Baby eating Atheist!!1

There are YEC's everywhere who inevitably say "there is all this evidence that radioactive decay rates change."

I'd appreciate it if anyone could show me some. Even Google couldn't find any for me!

I just don't understand why some people will go to great lengths to try and disprove science, or at least the science they don't like, which is why nobody has set out to prove that viagara doesn't work or is bad or something.

I suppose this is why YEC and such are in the minority.

I love how they start off by saying the subject should be handled with sensitivity and that there are people who are condescending towards homosexuals and treat them like lepers. Then they go on to quote the bible that homosexuals are an abomination.

Way to go Kirk and Ray, handled with great sensitivity

*edit* Oh and then email is a gem, a gem I tell you

They got a few things right though.
Just because something feels right it is not necessarily right. Humans gravitate towards sin like moths towards light.
I guess that is why power corrupts.

Not when you don't accept the concept of sin they don't

I see the only problem with the video above that they seem to accept the Bible as the only possible base of morality. Just because that is not necessarily the Bible doesn't mean there is no morality.
Do you accept that there are morally wrong things (i.e. there is sin)? For example pedophilia or rape or at least some combination of the two?

I do not believe in sin. I prefer "crime", as it connotes a breach of laws that are legitimated by society instead of a divine being.
Lying, for example, as long as it doesn't imply fraud in a legal sense, is not a crime, and not a sin either, rather a violation of social conventions that, if discovered, can be punished by society on a non-legal level, depending on the overall ethical code that is agreed upon by said society.
If you don't break secular laws, and are able and willing to bear the social consequences of your behavior, you're fine. It's up to you.

In the days and weeks following the forced landing of a passenger jet on the waters of the Hudson many were eager to proclaim it a miracle and attribute the aversion of what could have been a substantial loss of life to God, rather than the most excellent piloting skills of Chesley Sullenburger III in his execution of a text-book ditching (not to mention those diligent folks who wrote the text-books, some of whom no doubt did their research by trial and error).

It is difficult to imagine that recollections of this event were far from people's minds when they heard of the helicopter that collided with a small plane over The Hudson a few days ago and yet I've not heard so far any accusations or blame laid at God's door.

Is it right that in some people's eyes God can take the credit for all the good things that happen but be exempt from responsibility when things turn bad?

If you are a Christian, do you think this type of activity belittles your faith? If you are of another faith, how does this sit with your beliefs and understanding?

If you do think that Sully's joystick was touched by the hand of God how do you square that with this incident? Is it part of The Divine Plan that we are reminded of His Grace on some occasions but taught important lessons about the nature of life on others?

Is there anyone who thinks God should indeed be given credit for this and that the people aboard the two craft were all deserving of his wrath?

Although it should be apparent to all that it's not my intention to make light of this awful accident - I can't imagine how it must have been for those poor people to spend their last minutes in fear and possible agony - but still I'm curious how people feel about this apparent (but not necessarily actual) dual standard from some quarters.

Funny you should mention this

I never got a response

You know there are 2 guys. One takes the credit for the good things, the other takes the blame for the bad things.
Sometimes they both take the credit for the same thing, because it is good for someone and bad for others.
That is the nice thing in dualism.
I want a god that takes the credit for the boring neutral things.

That addresses another tangent; questions of infallibility and omnipotence of God.

There are, at it's simplest, only two possible conclusions to be drawn from the "Lucifer as progenitor of evil" model.

The first is that God is the good guy, watching our backs and looking out for us. Despite this, the devil sometimes gets the better of him, thus proving God to be fallible, capable of being bested and not quite as omnipotent as the sales literature would have us believe*.

The second is that the Devil operates under the licence of God with His full permission and approval**.

Dirty jobs done dirt cheap?

So although these are other avenues for discussion, they don't get away from the core - if Sully's triumph can be attributed to God's action cab this latest disaster be also attributed to God, either through action or wilful and deliberate inaction***?




*In times gone by I would have been burnt at the stake for even suggesting this.
**Flayed alive and dipped in boiling oil was the standard for this one.
***confined for a week in a barrel of angry weasels before having my liver and lights removed, roasted, fed to me, removed again, fed to a dog and then finally having my still living head impaled on a red hot poker inserted not at the neck but the fundament.

Well, this addresses the catholic point of view, but there are more than that to Christians.
One example:
Just because the Catholics murdered them they did not make the Cathar philosophy less legit than the Catholic dogma. (Actually massacred them together with more Catholics than actual Cathars "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Kill them all. God will pick out his own.)

From their point of view if you create something you will have more power in your creation than anyone else. (Should I say they don't accept omnipotence?) According to them their not very original idea in that time is that the God of Old Testament is actually the devil. He created the earth as a prison. So the god of love is almost powerless here, since this is not his creation. The only thing the God of Love can do for us is to send us stories, and save out his true believers from the cycle of reincarnation that is going on on Earth. Thus comes their version of the story of Jesus to light our way to the God of Love, to break the chains of reincarnation, the material impurity and pain forced on us by his evil counterpart.

Their question is if you want to break out of the jail. If it is a yes, follow Jesus, if this place is all right for you, then all is well. This religion obviously could not propagate very well, since it does not try to force everyone to his way. No wonder they all got massacred.

If there is any overlap with the Catholics then that's incidental.

Other than that, I'd never come across that about the Cathar's beliefs.

I shall add that to the pot of "new things I've learnt today."

(In certain areas I'm an over achiever - I don't like limiting my acquisition of new things to know to one per day).

Not very practical knowledge, most Cathars were utterly eradicated from the face of earth several hundred years ago. Some were left practicing their belief in secret. In East Europe if you are lucky you might meet some. They were originally a west European movement but the religious climate did not favor them in areas where there were a dominant religion in place. I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few in Ireland too and other mixed religious places like that. Understandably they are not very open about their belief, so it is not easy to spot them.

"Darwin did not invent evolution, Satan did"

"Here I will demonstrate the evolution of cutlery"

"Whales do not have vestigial limbs, it's a lie"

I wonder how many people through lack of education and fingers-in-ears syndrome hold these kind of views?

This sort of thing just makes me sad for two reasons:

1. People like this are so close to getting it, and then blow away their chances. It's great that they question science. Science is all about questioning our understanding of things. But then they claim that science should not be questioned and that religion is right.... and should not be questioned either. Argh.

2. I know many scientists who are also religious. People like this do a huge disservice to the smart and talented people who have no trouble in reconciling science with their beliefs.

I have to wonder if the guy making that is sincere or is trolling. He leaves so many holes in what he says that he sounds on one level like he is engaged in a media studies project to try and get the most vitriolic comments in response.

I mean, when he talks of giant skeletons being unearthed he is referring to a series of popular Worth1000 competitions, isn't he? The one that has been covered during slow news periods by most major papers around the planet.

I wonder if he also tells people to avoid the San Francisco bay area as sharks have been observed attacking helicopters there.

On part that did tickle me was him claiming that it's ridiculous to suggest that a spork is somehow developed from a spoon and a fork.