The Isla Vista murders occurred on May 23, 2014, near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara in Isla Vista, California.  The spree started when a mentally unstable narcissistic virgin named Elliot Rodger stabbed to death his two roommates and a visitor in his apartment. He then continued with a series of shootings which resulted in two women being murdered outside a sorority house and one man being killed inside a deli.  Rodger wounded thirteen others through a combination of vehicular attacks and drive-by shootings aimed at pedestrians.  He engaged in gunfire with Santa Barbara deputies during the killing spree and after the second exchange of gunfire with deputies he shot himself whereupon his vehicle crashed.


Richard Martinez, the father of Christopher Martinez, the final victim who was shot inside a deli that Elliot Rodger strafed with gunfire from his vehicle, stated that he intended to “capitalize on [his] 15 minutes of fame” granted by the death of his son to angrily blame “craven politicians and the NRA”; asserting “You don’t need three handguns with 400 rounds (of ammunition). That’s crazy. It’s a matter of proportion.”  As if loosing a child to a acts of lunatic entitles him to punish everyone else by demanding we be deprived of our liberties.

Like flies drawn to a pile of shit, the civilian disarmament crowd rushed to see who could be first to frame the Isla Vista killings as somehow caused by a lack of gun control. The problem was that Isla Vista is in California, a state well-known as the gun grabber’s wet dream for pointless anti-gun laws.  Laws that employ new-speak terms like ‘sensible’ ‘common-sense’ ‘gun sense’ and ‘gun safety’.  Not to be deterred they ignored the failings of the current gun control laws and doubled down on calls for more pointless restrictions and regulations.

The Brady Campaign, an old hat at never passing up the chance to dance on the half cold bodies of the dead, issued a statement from their President, Dan Gross, which asserted “Americans are dying every day because of the corporate gun lobby and the politicians it has in its pocket.”  A statement which pretends the millions of law-abiding gun owners who voted those pro-gun politicians into office do not actually exist nor lobby their representative to fight those who attack the 2nd Amendment.

Shannon Watts, the rookie Michael Bloomberg puppet and ‘founder’ of Moms Demand Action, argued that because two of the six California victims were women, “The fact is, women are the target of far too many shootings in America. The story that desperately needs to be told is that the majority of mass shootings in this country are in fact domestic violence incidents.” A somewhat illogical argument as the two female victims had not had any kind of relationship with Elliot Rodger which would be needed to classify their killings as ‘domestic’.

In yet another attention grabbing open letter from the father of a child killed by another mentally disturbed individual at Sandy Hook, Mark Barden asserted that Richard Martinez was now a member of a “family born from the horrible circumstance of losing a child to gun violence”.  Notice how the labeling obfuscates blame and takes attention from the actual killers and places the focus on the GUN VIOLENCE.  Barden apparently places the parents of the three men stabbed to death into a separate, less important family.  After all, those parents cannot help him advance his anti-gun agenda, so who gives a shit where they go.

At least one anti-gun opinion writer at the L.A. Times was honest enough to come out and admit the ultimate goal of the civilian disarmament lobby. In a refreshingly honest piece the author, Scott Martelle, says flat-out that he would “ban [firearms], with a carve-out for hunting weapons.” In his draconian system even the hunters he would ‘allow’ to own firearms would be required to pass a mandatory government training course, obtain a hunting license, which the hunter would then need to register the firearm in the first place.  In Martelle’s gun-control utopia, the resale of firearms would be monitored by big brother to preclude ‘unqualified’ people. Want to pick up a couple of boxes of ammo for that new hunting gun you finally obtained?  Well, since you’re practically a criminal for just owning the damn thing, Martelle would also like that ammo “tracked much like we do sales of pseudoephedrine (an ingredient in meth).” Martelle goes on to describe his authoritarian fantasy further but you get the general idea.  More or less exactly what every 2nd Amendment advocate has known for years but have been labeled paranoid for actually expressing

The one thing all of these people have in common is their shamelessly dishonest attempt to shift the blame from the actual killer toward ONE of the three weapons (knife, gun, car) he used to kill and maim his victims.


To understand the utter failure of California gun control laws let’s review exactly what the law requires of just handguns, as this was the type firearm used.

  1. Handgun purchases require a Handgun Safety Certificate and proof of residency.
  2. Approved application to the California Department of Justice prior to purchase. [Only good for 10 days following approval]
  3. 10 day waiting period for delivery of any firearm.
  4. All handgun serial numbers and sales must be registered with the state’s Automated Firearms System.
  5. Handguns must be transported unloaded and in a locked container other than the glove compartment or utility box in a motor vehicle.
  6. It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any [magazine holding more than 10 rounds]
  7. Firearms Carry Permits at the discretion of County sheriff or local Police Chief. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s policy is "no-issue".

Just as everyone with actual common sense – as opposed to the gun grabber newspeak — has explained since these sorts of laws were enacted, not one of these laws prevented Elliot Rodger from obtaining his pistols and carrying out his plans. Rodger patiently jumped through every pointless hoop to acquire his three pistols in the preceding months. He then compensated for the 10 round mag limit by merely purchasing multiple magazines. Sheriff Bill Brown’s lauded policy of not issuing carry permits did nothing to prevent the shooter from carrying his pistols in public, if anything his policy all but guaranteed that Elliot Rodger would encounter no resistance prior to the arrival of law enforcement.


Of the utter nonsense contained within the pages of the manifesto written by Rodger prior to his rampage, he actually provided the world with the solution to stopping those like him.

"It came to a point where I had to set a date for the Day of Retribution. I originally considered doing it on the Halloween of 2013. That is when the entire town erupts in raucous partying. There would literally be thousands of people crowded together who I could kill with ease, and the goal was to kill everyone in Isla Vista, to utterly destroy that wretched town. But then, after seeing footage of previous Halloween events on YouTube, I saw that there were too many cops walking around. It would be too risky. One gunshot from a cop will end everything."  (PAGE 118) – My Twisted World – ‘The Story of Elliot Rodger’ By: Elliot Rodger

And so we find that the one thing Rodger feared was not punishment for breaking the law, it was being prematurely stopped by armed police.  I’m going to state a simple fact that makes gun grabbers shriek in outrage every time it is stated. The only thing that stops and deters malevolent individuals from the unlawful use of force and violence on the innocent is for the innocent to use force and violence themselves.

Take your pick from any of the recent mass shooters, such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, they cannot be reasoned with, they have no other rule but force and violence and as such deserve to be treated as any other predatory animal that might kill people if those people were to fall under their power.

Gun grabbers enjoy employing the word reasonable; what is more reasonable and just than that someone should have a right to use force and violence against someone who threatens their life with force and violence? It is a fundamental law of nature, that although human life should be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred.  And so we find that anyone may employ force and violence even so far as to kill those who are actively attempting to murder innocent people for the same reason that he/she may kill a predatory animal.

The answer is not MORE pointless government regulations.  The clear answer is to lift the current prohibitions on people being able to defend themselves, to employ force against those who have decided to prey on their own species.  Gun grabbers love to use the term GUN VIOLENCE, if only they would stop focusing so much on the damn ‘GUN’ and take steps to enable people to stop the ‘VIOLENCE’ in whatever form it may take.  Stop preventing the good citizens who wish to carry a firearm from obtaining their permits.   Until enough people in California are able to get past their irrational hatred of inanimate objects and realize the real issue is the person who wields the weapon, nut jobs will continue to succeed at lashing out and harming defenseless people.

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on Isla Vista: The Great Gun Control Failure

Buzzfeed’s Matt Stopera published an article entitled  22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution which contained photos of 22 creationist at the event, each holding a question for Bill Nye.  As these questions often come up when discussing the issue with creationist myself I wanted to post my own answers.

If we define positive by how well we educate our children concerning the operations of the physical world, how to think critically, and to recognize when supposed answers actually have no explanatory value, then yes.  Whereas other educators are focused on teaching at the high school and college level, well after some parents have crammed their children’s minds with superstitious religious bullshit; Bill Nye is at the forefront of education, introducing young children to the wonders of the real world.


Since there is nothing to fear from “creators” that show no evidence of being physically real, then no I am not scared.  I do not fear a divine creator for the same reason I don’t fear the boogie man, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Kruger.  I find this question odd because to fear something first requires a belief in that something.  If there is no reason to believe this divine creator is real then the question seems to resolve itself.


Yes, of course it is illogical.  Occam’s Razor tells us that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  The idea Earth was created as we see it today would require your creator god to create all the evidence currently pointing to a 4.5 Billion year old Earth.  That necessitates your god being a dishonest trickster deity which is refuted by the very Bible to which Ham appeals.  Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.”


No, it does no such thing.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics roughly states that energy can only flow from a hot body to a cold one in a closed system, and that the measure of this is called entropy, which only ever increases.  The argument being that a living cell appears to contradict this by maintaining order in their cellular innards.  Alas living things are not closed systems.  Creationist like to use one thing they don’t understand to explain the others.  The problem here is a misunderstanding of physics.


This is a misunderstanding of physics and cosmology.  Living in the same region, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt that her question was with regard to the beauty of the sunset, not how it occurs.  It should be obvious to anyone with a basic education that the earth is a rotating oblate spheroid and sun sets when any surface observer rotates away from the sun.  The beauty aspect usually depends on other factors such as landscape and weather and is purely subjective, not everyone is in awe over the sun setting.


Basically the same answer as #4, with a slight twist. At the start, the universe in its compressed form would seem to be at near-maximum entropy — a dense, homogenous gas.  But the “organization” of the universe into its current form also generates disorder.  The solution here is that because the universe is expanding it keeps getting shifted out of equilibrium.  In the drive to reach a new equilibrium state, you can get pockets of order occurring without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing.


What about it?  It is a branch of study concerning the mind and intellect.  The concept is most widely known from a mention in Dan Brown’s novel “The Lost Symbol.” It’s not evidence against evolution nor is it evidence pointing to any sort of god.  The argument would appear to be that the mind is unexplainable without a supernatural creator.  Again we find the old argument from ignorance.  As far as we can tell our mind is a manifestation of our physical brain and not something that is separate from the brain.


From many of the same places that you probably do.  But this is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is true or not.  Should we not try and shape facts to fit a certain philosophy, or figure out the facts and consider how this affects our worldview?  The hidden argument here is that without a sky daddy there is no meaning to life.  But the meaning granted to us by a religious belief is that we are all slaves created to dedicate our entire lives to the adulation and subservience of an invisible celestial dictatorship, backed up by a threat that refusal will lead to torment after death.  Why would anyone want that sort of “objective” meaning?


This is yet another argument from ignorance, otherwise known as the god of the gaps.  The implied argument being that, absent a scientific explanation concerning how life arose, the default answer is to attribute it to a god; this doesn’t actually explain anything.  The question of how the first cell arose is actually irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution via Random Mutation and Natural selection or the Earth being 4.5 Billion year old, the two things which Ken Ham explicitly denies. The chance of life originating on Earth is actually 100% because it has already occurred.  Attributing life to a god only begs the question of how god originated?  Did their god originate by chance?


This isn’t a question but a theological assertion which shoe horns a religious belief into the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the Universe.  This assertion is another appeal to ignorance as it is currently unknown what if anything existed or could exist before the initial quantum fluctuation that lead to cosmic inflation.  This assertion requires further investigation such as why and how does god speak?  What did god say exactly and how did uttering this mystery phrase cause physical reality to begin?  The fundamental problem of appealing to supernatural causes in an attempt to explain natural observations is that it raises far more questions than it attempts to answer.


The question reads, “Why do evolutionist, secularist, humanist, non-god believing people reject the idea of their being a creator god but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?” This is example of prejudice as we don’t universally embrace that idea, nor are we required to believe aliens designed life in the absence of a magical sky daddy.  The exact explanation of how life arose is currently unknown.  All we know is that there is nothing within the laws of chemistry that prevent self-replicating molecules from occurring in nature.


The argument appears to be that there is nothing in-between Lucy and modern humans, only a few fossils of the hundreds necessary for what this person would consider “official proof”.  I’m wondering if this lady has ever heard of something called Wikipedia?  Perhaps she could start here and see all of the fossils showing the many intermediate forms between humans and our ancient apelike ancestors.  I’m also certain that even with hundreds of fossils this lady would then move the goal post and demand even more evidence before considering it “official proof”.


Metamorphosis is not micro-evolution; it’s a series of developmental stages in a single organism. Here is a good article on the evolution of metamorphosis in insects.


The idea that diseases are caused by germs is a theory too, yet most medical schools tend to spend much more time on antibiotics and hygiene than on faith healing. Most science classes don’t teach evolution “as fact”; it is taught as a scientific theory. And in this case, “theory” doesn’t mean “a bunch of wild ideas that Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye cooked up after a late night at the pub”; it means an explanation supported by massive amounts of physical evidence and logic, tested and weighed and re-tested and scrutinized by scientists across the world.Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be altered or disposed of if new, convincing evidence arises; creationism ignores or selectively misinterprets existing scientific evidence in favor of preserving the assumption of a divine creator.


That definition of theory is wrong as explained in the previous response.  Observation and testing is actually pretty much the entire thing that science is about.


So this seems to be a common creationist argument: evolution cannot be real because mutations don’t “add information.”  In their view, it’s impossible to get from a tiny microorganism that has a very small genome to a human with about 20,000 protein-coding genes through mutations.  This is kind of an extension of the entropy argument.  But there are actually plenty of ways that mutations can “add information” to the genome!  A region of DNA might be copied and inserted into the genome due to an error during replication, or by a virus.  Sometimes even a whole genome can get duplicated — many plants are what are called polyploidy, meaning they have multiple copies of their whole genetic library (cultivated strawberries, for example, are octoploids — they have 8 copies of their genome in every cell!)  Duplication is thought to be a powerful engine for evolution.  A creature might retain an original version of the copied gene, while the other copy might undergo some point mutations (changes to a single letter of the DNA sequence). The organism still has the functional, original gene that allows it to keep on trucking’, while the other copy may gain new functionality.


Like the 2nd & 8th question, this question is irrelevant to the larger question of whether evolution is true or not.  But this is also a false dichotomy; there are plenty of scientists that identify as religious and don’t see a conflict between evolution and their beliefs.  Does the concept of Salvation really hinge on whether or not humans evolved over time?

This also presumes that salvation from sin is something to be concerned with.  Sin is an affront against god and as yet there is no good evidence to assume there are gods, therefore there is no good reason to assume there is a need for salvation.


Scientists have actually found at least nine specimens of Austrolopithecus afarensis (the species “Lucy” belongs to) in Eastern Africa.  This is someone else who hasn’t yet heard of Wikipedia.  Perhaps he should look here if he wishes to see the other pre-human fossils he assumes have yet to be found.


Yes, because there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory.  Astronomical observations show that galaxies are moving away from each other, and if we trace their paths backward, it looks as though the Universe was condensed into a single, very hot point billions of years ago.  The ratios of hydrogen, helium and other elements throughout the Universe appear to match what we might expect if the Universe was once compressed into a tiny, very hot, very dense point.  We haven’t found any stars that appear to be older than 13.8 billion years old.  The cosmic background radiation permeating throughout the universe is at the temperature that one would expect from an expanding, cooling universe.


Ah…. you can add this to the long list of arguments from ignorance.  The non sequitur here being that the world is amazing therefore it must have come about by the will of a god; and I’m going to bet on it being her god.  Most scientists find evolution pretty amazing and beautiful!  It’s exciting to think about how life in all its vast, varied beauty and terror, has changed over billions of years – and how it might change in future eons.  Black holes are amazing as well, but they are also terrifying objects which can destroy solar systems and swallow whole stars.  Did god makes them?  Supernovas can destroy entire planets in orbit around them, some of which may harbor living beings.  Why would your god create something like that?


Barring the fact that the Big Bang isn’t quite the same thing as an exploding star—it’s massively hotter, for one thing, and stars explode in space, while the Big Bang created space itself and stretched it — a lot of scientists would like to know this too!One idea*, for example, is that the Big Bang was actually the interaction between two vast objects outside of our universe called “branes.” It’s an important question, and a difficult one to explore – but one of the great things about science is that you can always say “I don’t know”; another is to follow that up with “but I’ll try and find out.”


This question is, for lack of a nicer word, as stupid as asking why, if Americans came from England, are there still Englishmen?  Or, if dogs were bread from wolves why are their still wolves?  Humans did not “come from monkeys”, we simply share a common ancestor with all modern primates.  This man might be shocked to discover that humans are currently classified as great apes.  We are Homo sapiens, members of a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea.

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on Creationist Misunderstandings: Answered WITHOUT Genesis

By: Stephen P. Halbrook                        Published in The Washington Times                 Thursday, November 7, 2013

This week marks the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or the Night of the Broken Glass, the Nazi pogrom against Germany’s Jews on Nov. 9-10, 1938. Historians have documented most everything about it except what made it so easy to attack the defenseless Jews without fear of resistance. Their guns were registered and thus easily confiscated.

To illustrate, turn the clock back further and focus on just one victim, a renowned German athlete. Alfred Flatow won first place in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he dutifully registered three handguns, as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The decree also provided that in times of unrest, the guns could be confiscated. The government gullibly neglected to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, while political extremists and criminals would not. However, it did warn that the gun-registration records must be carefully stored so they would not fall into the hands of extremists.

The ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power just a year later, in 1933. The Nazis immediately used the firearms-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for Social Democrats and other political opponents of all types. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.

Jews were increasingly deprived of more and more rights of citizenship in the coming years. The Gestapo cautioned the police that it would endanger public safety to issue gun permits to Jews. Hitler faked a show of tolerance for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, but Flatow refused to attend the reunion there of former champions. He was Jewish and would not endorse the farce.

By fall of 1938, the Nazis were ratcheting up measures to expropriate the assets of Jews. To ensure that they had no means of resistance, the Jews were ordered to surrender their firearms.

Flatow walked into a Berlin police station to comply with the command and was arrested on the spot, as were other Jews standing in line. The arrest report confirmed that his pistols were duly registered, which was obviously how the police knew he had them. While no law prohibited a Jew from owning guns, the report recited the Nazi mantra: “Jews in possession of weapons are a danger to the German people.” Despite his compliance, Flatow was turned over to the Gestapo.

This scenario took place all over Germany — firearms were confiscated from all Jews registered as gun owners. As this was occurring, a wholly irrelevant event provided just the excuse needed to launch a violent attack on the Jewish community: A Polish teenager who was Jewish shot a German diplomat in Paris. The stage was set to instigate Kristallnacht, a carefully orchestrated Nazi onslaught against the entire Jewish community in Germany that horrified the world and even the German public.

Under the pretense of searching for weapons, Jewish homes were vandalized, businesses ransacked and synagogues burned. Jews were terrorized, beaten and killed. Orders were sent to shoot anyone who resisted.

SS head Heinrich Himmler decreed that possession of a gun by a Jew was punishable by 20 years in a concentration camp. An estimated 20,000 Jewish men were thrown into such camps for this reason or just for being Jewish. The Jewish community was then held at ransom to pay for the damage done by the Nazis.

These horrific events were widely reported in the American media, such as The New York Times. After Hitler launched World War II, the United States made preparations in case it was dragged into the conflict. Just before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a law noting the Gestapo methods and declaring that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by such measures as registration of firearms.

Kristallnacht has been called “the day the Holocaust began.” Flatow’s footsteps can be followed to see why. He would be required to wear the Star of David. In 1942, he was deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he starved to death.

One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Flatow in his last days. Perhaps memories of the Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts about whether he should have registered his guns in 1932? Or whether he should have obediently surrendered his firearms at a Berlin police station in 1938 as ordered by Nazi decree, only to be taken into Gestapo custody? Did he fantasize about shooting Nazis? We will never know, but it is difficult to imagine that he had no regrets over his act of compliance.

Today, gun control, registration and prohibition are depicted as benign and progressive. Government should register gun owners and ban any guns it wishes, Americans are told, because government is inherently good and trustworthy. The experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, for that matter, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, are beneath the realm of possibility in exceptional America. Let’s hope so.

Still, be careful what you wish for.

Stephen Halbrook is research fellow with the Independent Institute and author “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’” (Independent Institute, 2013).

by | Categories: John Tremblay, Musing | Comments Off on What made the Nazi Holocaust possible? Gun control

unburdened wrote:

you sound like a very unhappy person , that is sad, because the proof you ask for is the HOLY SPIRIT and I know when it happened to me I was in autopilot , i was raised in several different churches as a child and I wrote off alot of what i heard off because i didnt want to hear it, then one day during one of the worst times in my life, I felt I could not go on anymore, and I was ready to give up and I fell down on the floor and cried out to Jesus, time seemed to stand still, and i was lifted up by hands that were unseen and I literally felt my heart just pounded away but I felt such Peace like never before, I knew my heart had been changed from a self centered brat to someone who could get through any tough times. Since then I had a horse fall over backwards on me at a show and I came out without even a mark on me, I was in the middle of a bad wreck where my car had the front end smashed in about 5 months ago didnt even need to be checked out when the ambulance arrived. That is my proof, until you have that you will have a life of doubt and anger. God BLess you !

Once again we see another example of a favorite Christian Red herring, which is a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue. The scenario works like so, the Christian is confronted by a statement that he/she cannot refute and instead of admitting that they dodge and redirect by accusing the person confronting them with the statement of being angry, sad, or an otherwise unhappy person. This usually works when engaging with a novice but after you debate enough Christians you soon find that this tactic is VERY common, well I’m not falling for it unburdened.

My emotional state is irrelevant to the discussion. I’m not any of those things you say I sound like but even if someone in my position were, it would not effect the argument that your belief is founded in nothing but ancient myths and hearsay.

You’re anecdotal personal testimony is not evidence that anything in your religion is factual. It is merely evidence that you were in a desperate emotional state and in that state you decided to surrender your ability to think and deal with your situation. You took the lazy way out and surrendered your reasoning to a blind belief that a magic man, which just coincidentally happens to be the central figure of the religion in which you were raised, would somehow come to your rescue, like an invisible Superman.

Your alleged evidence that anything happened is first a subjective feeling that time stood still, something that others not only have experienced with different religions but that is documented to occur when the brain is under stress from a myriad of things. Second, a feeling that you were lifted up by hands that were unseen, something called the Ideomotor phenomenon. Mystics, and religions, attribute these effects to paranormal or supernatural forces and due to confirmation bias you assumed that your actions were originating from god.
You say you "felt such Peace like never before" which can also be attributed to endorphins being released in the brain as a response to intense emotional pain. Everything you describe can be explained through purely physical phenomenon and require no appeals to supernatural intervention.

Your other alleged evidence is also subject to your own confirmation bias. So you had a horse fall over backwards on you at a show and you came out without a mark, are you the only one to have ever survived something like that? I doubt it. You were in the middle of a bad wreck where your car had the front end smashed in about 5 months ago didn’t even need to be checked out when the ambulance arrived, which means the vehicle did exactly as it was designed and absorbed the impact energy before it effected you. You should think the car engineers for saving your life, not some invisible silent magic man.

unburdened wrote:

I have my beliefs you have yours

This is a meaningless tautology. It’s way of appearing to say something without saying anything at all. Of course we have have differing beliefs, why else are we have this discussion. What you really mean to convey, I think, is that you have your reasons for assuming what you believe, reasons which I just showed be fallacious, and that you don’t care that they are fallacious. You believe things not because they are objectively true but for no other reason than they make you feel good about believing them. You enjoy having your beliefs, like a child enjoys having a favorite toy, and would rather ignore the hard truth of reality in favor of a reassuring fable; we all know children are not fond of giving up their favorite toy.

unburdened wrote:

I am not wasting my time bantering with you any further , I am here to share with other Christians and not argue , enjoy this world it will be all you get.

I’m sorry that you actually think scrutinizing extraordinary claims is a waste of time. I’m sorry you do not value truth, and I’m not talking about the pseudo-"truth" asserted by religious adherents, I’m talking about objective, verifiable truth founded on good reason and evidence.

You seemed not to think you were wasting your time sharing your so-called miraculous brushes with death. I know it must have burst your magical bubble to have it explained why those things were not so miraculous. Now you’ve seemingly run out of magical anecdotes and personal testimony of spooky experiences and want to run from the discussion. I understand.

The thing is if you want to share things with other Christians there is a place for that, it’s called church. In church you can control who talks and legitimately silence dissenting views and bothersome questions. On the other hand this is Topix and though you may wish to engage in self righteous back-patting and mutual confirmation of your fables, you can’t control who responds to those claims. If you’re claims had any merit to them whatsoever you should welcome criticism. If your claims had any basis in reality then they should be able to withstand any amount of criticism thrown their way. Can not truth defend itself from error?

As your claims cannot stand up to even the innocent questions of children, they stand no chance at all against the questions of rational adults with the instant fact checking offered by the Internet.

But thanks, I will enjoy this world and the actual marvels that reality has to offer, marvels that put to shame things like silly stories of burning bushes. I choose to be thankful that I have a life, and will forsake any vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. I hope you eventually open your eyes to reality. It would be a waste to spend your entire life chasing empty promises of pie in the sky.

The other day a close family member, who is aware of my atheism, presented me with a religious tract entitled “Why You Can Trust the Bible”.  This relative happens to be a Southern Baptist and so I could not resist pointing out that the tract being presented was actually composed by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Yes, the same Jehovah’s Witnesses who reject the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was paradoxically both a man and a God.  As you can see [here] on the scanned copy, the actual text citing the Jehovah’s Witness organization was sloppily marked though by someone wishing to obscure the true origin of the tract.  At any rate, I thought I would take the opportunity to write a thorough response to the assertions presented in the tract for both my blog and my relative.  So lets dive in, shall we.

The first two sentences are the only parts of the tract with which I actually agree.  Yes indeed, people do say the Bible is unreliable, a great number of well-educated people in fact and their numbers are growing according to national polls.  The tract opens with the argument that “[…]what Jesus Christ said in prayer to God promotes trust” and quotes John 17:17 and 2 Timothy 3:15 from “the Bible itself”.  Here we have two logical fallacies, the first fallacy is argumentum ad auctoritatem (argument from authority) and the second is circular reasoning, whereby the author has begun with what he or she is trying to prove.

The circular reasoning comes from the fact that the author is claiming that the Bible is trustworthy by citing the very book he is attempting to prove is trustworthy.  In other words, the Bible is trustworthy because the Bible says the Bible is trustworthy.  The argument that the Bible is true because “Jesus Christ said in prayer” is fallacious due to the unfounded premise that Jesus is an authority on anything, a premise that must be assumed a priori based on nothing but the very book whose trustworthiness has yet to be proven.

The author asks the reader if anyone has ever shown them an actual example of contradictions in the Bible after which he cherry picks a few minor contradictions, some of which are not contradictions so much as unanswered questions, around which he can easily tap dance.  He or she states that these discrepancies only appear to be discrepancies due to a lack of knowledge.  For example, ‘where did Cain get his wife?’.  The answer is obvious, says the author, because Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had multiple children.  This contradiction does appear to be resolved by the assumption that Adam and Eve had more than three children but it’s a fan dance performed by the apologist as it ignores the purpose of the tract which was to explain “Why you can trust the Bible”.   It doesn’t matter how many children Adam and Eve produced as we first must ask if we can trust the Biblical assertion that the human species is descended from a specially created first man and woman.  How did Jehovah magically make Adam appear fully formed out of dirt and then, oddly enough, magically clone Eve from one of his ribs.  The author just assumes the Bible is trustworthy concerning human origins without demonstrating why that assumption is valid.  I guess author expects us to overlook that mystery and just accept the premise that the Bible is trustworthy because the Bible says it is trustworthy.

The author outright dismisses a contradiction between Matthew and Luke by asserting that a reasonable person does not claim a discrepancy because the work was credited to the one who is actually responsible for it over those who carried out the deed.  However, the discrepancy of which the author is speaking is not a matter of crediting different people for the same act.

Matthew 8:5-6: When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

Luke 7:1-3: When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum.  There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.

Matthew clearly says that “a centurion came to him” while Luke says that the centurion “sent some elders of the Jews”.  The author is dishonest in his explanation where he writes “it is not inconsistent for Matthew to say that the army officer made a request of Jesus but, as Luke writes, that such a request was made though certain representative.”  The dishonesty on the part of the author comes from ignoring that Matthew plainly says that “a centurion came to him”.  This is not a matter of attributing credit, the former claims it was the centurion himself who came to Jesus while the latter says it was not the centurion but rather elders sent by the centurion who came to Jesus.

Is it not odd that the author failed to quote the passages verbatim so that they could be examined but rather expects the reader to take his explanation at face value?  Speaking of what a reasonable person would think, a reasonable would think that a book allegedly inspired by an omnipotent being would not show signs that the accounts being presented as trustworthy facts are actually hearsay accounts of past events recorded by fallible humans.

Speaking of contradictions, does the Bible endorse or forbid the killing of children for the iniquity of their fathers?  I guess it depends on which book of the Bible you read.

ISA 14:21 “Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.”

DEU 24:16 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

The list of contradictions contained in the Bible is daunting to say the least but for brevity I will move on to the author’s next point, my favorite area to refute, history and science.  The author writes that “the historical accuracy of the Bible was once widely doubted”, which is false, the historical accuracy is still currently doubted and for good reason, there is evidence refuting it.  The author again cherry picks minor subjects such as the existence of kings or cities or certain Roman figures mentioned in the Bible.  These sorts of things all fall under what has been commonly called the Spiderman Fallacy.  For example, the argument that New York is a real place, Spiderman lived in New York, and therefore Spiderman is real is fallacious as the conclusion does not follow from the premise.  Likewise, though the Bible may contain accounts involving real locations and people verified by outside sources, but those facts do not lend any weight to any of the miraculous or supernatural claims presented in the Bible.

Moshe Pearlman (1911 – April 5, 1986) is falsely cited by the author as being a historian.  Pearlman was not a historian but an Israeli writer who first worked as a journalist and then immigrated to Israel.  He joined the Army of the newly founded state and was the first Israeli military spokesman.  In 1960 he retired and devoted himself to his literary activity.  An actual historian by the name of Israel Finkelstein, the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University and co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel, and Neil Silberman reveal that no archaeological evidence has been found for many of the Old Testament’s claims:

“Much of what is commonly taken for granted as accurate history – the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and even the saga of the glorious monarchy of David and Solomon – are, rather, the creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age” (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2002, p. 23). They date the Iron Age at 1150-586 BCE (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2002).

“The historical saga contained in the Bible – from Abraham’s encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses’ deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah – was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the imagination” (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2002, p. 1).

The author next attempts to draw parallels between the Bible and modern scientific discoveries by stating that “not long ago scientists, in contradiction of the Bible, asserted that the universe had no beginning.”  In actuality, there was simply no consensus among scientists concerning the beginning of the cosmos or if it had a beginning as there was a lack of evidence for either view.  Unlike religion or the Bible, science bases its conclusions on evidence.  When Edwin Hubble discovered via the Doppler Effect that the cosmos was expanding exponentially the question was answered, the cosmos must have originated from a single point.

Now the author stops his argument at claiming the Bible and science agree that the cosmos has a beginning and therefore concludes that science proves the Bible.  This could not be further from the truth and it is telling that he dismisses everything after that by writing that “the details differ, but the essential elements in astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.”  That is probably the most amazing understatement ever written.  Let’s take a closer look at these differing details and see if the “essential elements” are the same.

The Bible begins with “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” which does not agree with modern cosmology in the slightest.  The earth did not come into existence until around 8.5 Billion years after the beginning of the cosmos as we know it.  Assuming that heaven means everything else in the cosmos and that the Bible was actually inspired by an all-knowing being, the accurate passage should read something on the order of “In the beginning God created the heavens, and waited for hydrogen to collapse into the first stars, and waited for the first stars to generate heavy elements, and waited for those stars to explode, and waited for that dust to collapse into solar systems, when then formed the earth.”  Of course the human writers of Genesis had no way of knowing any of that when they wrote Genesis and were simply inventing an explanation for something they could not possibly explain in their time.

The Bible says that “the earth was without formless, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” which also does not agree with modern cosmology.  Our sun, one of billions in our Galaxy, would have already started to undergo nuclear fusion and shine before the earth as we know it accreted.

The Bible says “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” which does not agree with modern cosmology.  Light, electromagnetic waves, have existed since the very beginning of the cosmos.  Light did not suddenly appear AFTER the earth formed.  The next passage says “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” which is redundant as the fact that the earth is a sphere would divide night and day by default.  Only one side could have been facing the sun, there is no need for any omnipotent being to divide night and day unless of course we are speaking of a flat earth, we are coming to that.

Genesis 1:14 says “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”  This also is contradicted by modern cosmology.  The majority of the “lights in the firmament”, otherwise known as distant stars, were already in existence before the earth formed.  They did not magically appear after the earth came to be and they do not exist to give us signs for seasons and days and years, rather because on a cosmic time scale we do no perceive their movements, humans can use their predictability to measure seasons, days and years.

The last one before I move on is Genesis 1:16 “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”  As has been stated, the “greater light to rule the day” existed prior to the formation of the earth itself.  The “lesser light to rule the night” as best we can tell was the result of a massive impact between a proto Earth and a Mars size proto planet which ejected much of the crust into space which collected to form the moon and contributed to the Earth’s large metallic core.  The sun and moon were not a result of an all-powerful deity magically creating them because he thought they would look cool.

The author’s next assertion is that the Bible has always claimed the earth was a sphere.  He incorrectly explains that voyages of discovery showed that the earth was a round.  That is false.  Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth’s circumference around 240 BC.  He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow.  Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations, he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a ‘stade’ is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes’ figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.

What does the Bible say about the shape of the Earth?  According to the author, who quotes Isaiah 40:22, the Bible says god dwells above the circle of the earth and then spins the definition of circle to mean sphere by claiming other translations say “the globe of the earth”.  It makes sense that later translations would reinterpret circle to mean globe, they had the benefit of scientific knowledge.  However, a circle is two-dimensional, as in flat.  The Biblical flat earth view can be demonstrated by the new testament myth of Jesus being tempted by Satan.  Matthew 4:8 says “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” The only way Satan could have shown all the kingdoms of the world from a very high mountain would be if the earth was flat.  It is impossible to see the entirety of a sphere regardless of height.

Although the author asserts that the more humans learn, the greater the evidence is that the Bible can be trusted; the reality is that the Bible is constantly being revealed as a work of fiction, voted on and complied by church leaders from the writings of other men over many centuries.  No, the Bible is not trustworthy with regard to History and Science.

Can the Bible foretell the future?  Well that depends on how far we are willing to lower the bar of what qualifies as prediction.  The author claims that on multiple occasions the Bible has predicted events hundreds of years in advance which have been fulfilled in exact detail.  The author makes the specific claim that the Bible foretold the overthrow of Babylon nearly 200 years before it happened.  The claim is that before 681 BCE the prophet Isaiah predicted Persia would defeat Babylon and furthermore that this prophecy was fulfilled in 539 BCE. They cite Isaiah 45:1 as predicting that “Babylon’s gates would open for Cyrus”:

This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: (NIV)

The tract author would have us believe that Isaiah prophesied specifically that Cyrus would be Babylon’s conqueror and would enter through gates, and that he made this prediction over 140 years before the event. In reality, this section of Isaiah was written shortly before 537 BCE, so even if the prediction was not made after the event its occurrence at least was imminent and the name of Cyrus would have been known.

Isaiah’s reference to gates, although the actual means Cyrus used to gain entry to the city of Babylon, was nonetheless meant figuratively. This is evidenced by noting the continued use of obviously figurative language in the next verse:

I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. (NIV)

It should be noted that Babylon is not actually mentioned anywhere in the chapter.  It should also be noted that “anointed” as used in Isaiah 45:1 is translated into Hebrew as “messiah” and into Greek as “Christ.” Although never admitted by Christians, this passage seems to assert that Cyrus is the messiah.  The author also asserts that Babylon is currently uninhabited ruins as the Bible foretold yet people obviously live there now (modern Iraq, and Baghdad for that matter).

As far as Biblical prophecy being a measure of trustworthiness what about the failed prophesy of Jesus himself?

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. Then He told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.“ (Luke 21:27-32)

In at least three of the gospels, Jesus is said to have predicted he would return in the lifetime of at least some of those in the generation alive at that time.  The fact that Jesus did not return as he foretold is one of the strongest reasons to reject the Bible as entirely untrustworthy.  This has not in the least hampered modern apologist who simply state that those passages are being misinterpreted, which is the usual excuse to dismiss Biblical falsehoods.

As was pointed out in the beginning of this rebuttal, the tract is a publication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  It is no surprise then that the version of the Bible for which he is advocating is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a translation specifically created by the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their sect.  Lastly, it should be noted that when it comes to Biblical trustworthiness the Jehovah’s Witnesses have made at least 19 official predictions based on the Bible that never came true.

The entire tract can be downloaded here [ FRONT ] [ BACK ]

Committed to HIM wrote:
The atheists do not have the capacity to understand that a true believer of Christ is inseparable from their faith. All that I am or could ever be has been made complete through the blood of Jesus Christ!
To summarize , an atheist is anti-Christ, refusing even God’s existence. They, not even recognizing Him, can’t begin to have understanding. The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of The Holy One is understanding. Therefore , understanding is impossible because they know not The Holy One!
I am thankful I know The Holy One. Any other believers thankful on this Lord’s day?

johnheadBut I was a true believer that Jesus as the son of god and after realizing what faith actually was and finding no evidence to justify holding such a view I gave it up.

Oh but then I must not have been a TRUE believer, I must have been fucking faking it all those years. Yea, that’s a no-true-Scotsman fallacy so you can take that excuse and shove it. People are allowed to change their minds and just because they changed their mind doesn’t mean they never believed it was real. Sometimes when people realize they are living in a fantasy they manage to grow a pair, question why it is they believe and eventually free themselves from the mental delusions of their peers.

Call me an anti-Christ if you like, in fact you can call me any number of derogatory names as many times as you like. But no matter what you call me it will not change the FACT that you have the same amount of evidence that Jesus was “the anointed one”, that he was born of a virgin, that he changed water in the wine, that he cured people with touch, that he brought the dead back to life, or that he himself rose from the dead and fucking flew to heaven as a Muslim has that Mohammad was a prophet of Allah. The only thing you have is faith; blind, ignorant, gullible acceptance that the writings of middle-east story tellers are actually true. You willingly choose to abandon reason and skepticism because believing you are the center of the cosmos makes you feel good, believing that you have an eternal parent that will not let you die makes you feel good, not having to think and make tough decisions on your own feels good, and believing that people who fail to agree with you will be tormented by some malevolent deity for eternity makes you feel good.

People take drugs because it allows them to escape reality. Religion is how you escape reality, religion is a drug and you are absolutely addicted to it. You will fight tooth and nail to keep getting your next fix just like any other addict. You come here to have people confirm your delusion and kill off any seeds of doubt that might happen to take root in that wonderful brain of yours.

You demonstrate this by making completely nonsensical assertions such as “fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom” which is a baseless argument from authority. You mean to tell me that a god that supposedly loves his creation needs to be feared? That is one of the great contradictions of your religion.

“knowledge of The Holy One is understanding” is another example of a completely vapid statement. Knowledge is demonstrable, please demonstrate the existence of this alleged “Holy One” that loves us to such a degree that we should fear it.

“I am thankful I know The Holy One.” Well I’m not convinced that you know anything actually. If you know something then demonstrate how you know, if you have faith then you do not know it, you are simply choosing to believe it in the absence of evidence. You have no right to make shit up and assert without reason that you know it to be true, we will not let you get away with it unopposed.


Prophet of Jesus Christ wrote:  That right there is disrespectful. And you are a liar. You do not respect me.

Can you not separate yourself from the religious bullshit you profess?

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

Prophet of Jesus Christ wrote:  Thomas Jefferson is in hell. You will be able to ask him about that when you get there.  Tell him the Prophet of Jesus Christ, sent you.

Actually Thomas Jefferson is dead and his body is in the ground. The same place you and I will be one day baring some other form of disposal for our biomass. Hell is a fabrication of humans and used as part of the old carrot and stick routine.

Here is how it works. Christianity has to convince everyone they were created sick, worm-like, contemptible, and worthless. Once the preachers of Christianity have succeeded they conveniently offer a cure. The cure is the complete and utter abandonment of reason and the surrender of your mind to the Christian dogma. The cure is appealing to some as Christianity promises that you do not have to think for yourself, it will tell you what to think and how to think. The reward for this utter abandonment of your own mind and your being complicit with the human sacrifice of a Jew named Jesus is eternity in heaven. Some preachers even talk about streets made of gold and mansions for everyone; a transparent appeal to human greed. It sounds really nice but it is a fantasy with absolutely no evidence, yet wishful thinking has a very powerful effect on humans. That’s the carrot part now let’s talk a little about the stick.

What about people who might begin to question and doubt the claims of the charlatans and hucksters who are raking in all that free money from the credulous followers of Jesus. The seeds of doubt grow very fast when planted in bullshit. What about those pesky people who dare to point out the contradictions in the Bible and ask for, the most contemptible thing of all, evidence. Evidence which supports the claims underlying the Christian religion. Well this is where the stick comes into play.

HELL!! Yes, that magical realm of unquenchable fire where people are roasted alive and tormented by demons yet cannot die. Throughout history every possible nightmare scenario that could possibly be imagined has been incorporated into the fantasy of hell. Give Dante’s Inferno a read, it’s some of the best torture porn you’ll every read. Like you, some people get off imagining other people being burned alive in agony. I have to give the hell fantasy props, it works on some people.

The problem is that I am not "some people". I am part of an ever-growing group of free thinking individuals who have begun to live, not according to supernatural authority, but according to reason. Reason demands evidence and there is absolutely no evidence that such a place exists. It’s nothing more than an adult version of the Boogie Man. Telling me, an Atheist, that I am going to hell is no different from telling me there are monsters under my bed.

I’m sorry you’re mind is not your own. I’m sorry that you are trapped in such a childlike religious mindset and are unable to experience reality for what it really is and not just what you wish and pretend it to be. I’m sorry that instead of considering that your religion might be entirely made up, you would rather imagine me and others being burned at the hands of some devil with a pitch fork and pointy tail. I’m sorry that you’re still trapped in the religion from which I was able to free myself. I hope you eventually experience reality before the one life you will ever have is over with.

Matt Dillahunty is a public speaker, internet personality and was the president of the Atheist Community of Austin until May, 2013.


You keep calling it magical… Magical is the big pow .. you knw everything came from nothing. With God, its not magical because he said he created man in His own image. Magic just pops out of the air .. but God created. And not just that it came from God… So, we are saying that it really didn’t come from " nowhere" as so much as "who" because "He" answers "the where" from who. Naw, not magic. Magic can be tested to be fallacy… But Yall can’t test God. You guys are still bumfuzzled at what all he has done much less bumfuzzled over how great God is. You guys will never figure Him out. He is just tooo great for your little minds ( that he made).

And for the record I do understand what appealing to the ignorant is. It the born again creationists who try to help the atheist understand… Hence appeal to the ignorant.

Indeed, religion claims that God spoke and then everything came from nothing. TAA-DA MAGIC!

Indeed, religion claims that God created man out of thin air, well dirt technically, but the dirt he made out of nothing. MAGIC!

You are just shifting the question and not actually answering anything. You claim everything came from god but then you’re stuck with the question of where did god come from. Who created god?

Indeed, Magic can be tested to be fallacious; not fallacy. I agree. Your claim that god’s magic trick 6000 years ago cannot be tested is true, it happened 6000 years ago. The fact that it cannot be tested is reason enough not to believe it. There is no reason to assume the universe is a result of god in the absence of evidence. Thor and Oden cannot be tested either, will you give them the assumption of existence as your god?

There are unsolved mysteries in science but that’s the great thing about science, the quest for answers, real objective answers. You seem satisfied with the mystery as you seem to think not knowing how something happened, other than pretending to know who made that something happen, counts as knowledge or explains anything whatsoever.

Your god is not to great for my little mind nor did your god make my mind for I know exactly where god resides; the limitless bounds of your imagination.

If that’s what you think Appeal to Ignorance means then you are under a grave misapprehension. You are using the word “ignorant” in the juvenile & pejorative sense of calling someone else stupid.

Arguments from Ignorance arise when creationist point out something which they claim science has not explained or claim is impossible via natural processes, and then assert that since science has yet to explain it, or because the creationist cannot fathom a natural explanation, their god is required as an explanation.

You will notice that the god they propose as an explanation is their personal and preferred god. Muslim creationist who make the same case as Christian creationist will end up concluding that Allah, the god of Mohammad, is the deity who created the earth.

Nope. in fact we do not technically say everything came came from nothing.. now we do not knw where God came from because you can’t measure that much power.. where God came from is a, … Its a place called nowhere.. but man and everything we know came from somewhere… God created.. so, we "all" and "everything else" came from God. So burrrrrrrrrnt X … WRONG AGAIN Garry. Wrong again.

And you say I’m shifting the question?? Okay… On your theory… Where did the start of the start of the big pow come from..???? Take down to the very tiniest start.. and the start of the start… And tell me where ur started from. We do in fact say that we do not know where God came from. And we say, that has always been a mystery…. We call it no where… The bible says our part of this existence began in "the beginning" .. but where did God come from .. sounds like a chore for all u scientist. Science is responsible for finding all that out and testing it. Don’t blame us or deny Gods existence because you guys aren’t smart enough to solve that problem. After all, yall said the earth was flat until u guys figured out ways to test that and make your findings. But that was everyone thought for a long time… Science and all. They were satisfied that that was the proper answer. .. so, until u find a way to test your theory that there is no God , I wouldn’t go around trying to sway plp not to believe. Because.. u don’t know…

That statement is a non sequitur. The alleged amount of power has no bearing on the question of origin. You have yet to substantiate your god’s existence so any discussion about his power is pointless.

Nowhere is by definition the absence of a location just as nothing is the absence things. Anything that IS requires a location to exist. Therefore, to assert that god came from NOWHERE is to admit that god came from nothing, if god is something and something cannot come from nothing then either something greater created god or god does not exist.

Man and everything we know did come from somewhere, claim god created us fallacious bare assertion.  All your word play and riddles cannot save you from the inevitable infinite regress.  Either god doesn’t exist or god has to have been created.

You are shifting the question, specifically from "how did the universe begin" to "how did your god begin?"  We don’t know yet, physics as we know it breaks down before 5.39106(32) × 10−44 seconds.  The very tiniest start would be the first Plank Time 5.39106(32) × 10−44 seconds.

If you are willing to assert that this god, for which you have no evidence, can come from nowhere then why is it so hard to imagine the known universe coming from nowhere?  There is no reason to consider your Bible an authority on anything.

Actually, science need not attempt to find the origin of anything which has not yet been found to exist. Science is out looking for the origin of Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy, those things are obviously imaginary. The only thing separating those things from your god is you inability to recognize obviousness.

We don’t blame you for your god’s lack of evidence, man made deities lack evidence by their nature. Science does not deny the existence of gods, though your Christian god is most certainly not real due to logical and literal contradictions.

Science never said the earth was flat, religion said the earth was flat. Science was used to determine the earth was round.  There was never a scientific claim for the earth being flat.  That belief was based purely on religious texts.

You just shifted the burden of proof again.  That which is asserted without evidence (GOD) can be dismissed without evidence. There is no need to prove the non-existence of something which you have already admitted cannot be measured. You’re set up a win-win situation for yourself. I can sway people from believing factious claims for no other reason that factious claims are unfounded.

After a lengthy exchange with a Christian Creationist Pastor he was reduced to back pedaling and playing victim.

John, I know your a self proclaimed atheist but you also know my position. I will post videos like this from time to time. You are free to comment every time. But, u also know that you don’t have to keep on and on. I get your point. I understand your position. I love also, in spite of your position. I’m not trying to change you. But u going to have to let me be me. Okay. ?? I am a born again Christian. That what I am. I’m not going to change. Respect that. Okay ?? It does get tiring answering the same thing over and over. Ill always try to give u a answer but come on man.

You say I’m a "self proclaimed atheist", as opposed to a notorious atheist? It sounds as if I’m something else but self-proclaiming to be otherwise. It’s just an odd label with which to saddle an opponent. It would be like my telling you Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah and a self-proclaimed son of god. We could say Jesus was the self-proclaimed savor of mankind; which is to infer that he wasn’t actually any of those things but boy he sure walked around for three years proclaiming it for himself.

Yes, I know your position better than you think because I use to hold that same position.
I have no quarrel with your posting any sort of video you like, it could be a video claiming Atheist are the sole reason evil exists and I wouldn’t demand you take it down. I despise censorship and I give you props that you’ve not be the sort of religious apologist that, when someone says something they do not like, just ban the offending party.

I don’t have to keep on but when you constantly make fallacious arguments and quote cherry picked scriptures as if the verse were an argument in and of itself I have no choice but to respond. You say you get my point but I somewhat doubt that, if you got my point you would not quote the same verse ad nauseum as if that one verse of scripture nullified any and all refutations of your claims.

You’re not trying to change me? Well doesn’t that run contrary to what your religion commands of you? Are you no suppose to share the "good news" with the world baptizing people in the name of Jesus? Is that not changing people? What else do you call that? It seems rather odd than upon, what I suspect is your realization of holding a weak position, you back pedal and act as if you’re now a victim of my trying to convert you! Excuse me but I am not the one asserting that your failure to reject superstition will lead to a eternity of fiery torment. I do not require supernatural threats to bolster my position. I do not base my arguments against religion on some authority. My refutations of all religions are based on very simple and verified rules of logic.

You say you’re not going to change, sure, I use to say that too. It’s a preemptive defensive statement to discourage, a admission of a closed mind. The human mind was build to be curious about the world around him, religion stifles that curiosity in exchange for a false sense of security. Do not ask questions, let the invisible eye in the sky take care of everything. However, nature has a way of breaking though even the most monolithic barriers. Like a weed growing through the cracks of what appeared to be a solid slab of rock. Not unlike plant seeds, the seeds of doubt grow quickly when planting in bullshit.