A NEW version of the Bible, which attempts to eliminate much of the sexist language that appeared in earlier editions, went on sale in the US this week – and at least one fundie outfit ain’t too happy about it.
Copies of the New International Version Bible is displayed in a book store in Nashville, Tenn. It has been criticised by some conservatives who don't like its use of gender-neutral language. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
Even before the latest translation of the New International Version Bible, or NIV, hit stores, it drew opposition from The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (motto: Proclaiming God’s Glorious Design for Men and Women).
The CBMW believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.
The council decided it would not endorse the new version because the changes alter:
The theological direction and meaning of the text.
Randy Stinson, President of the CBMW and dean of the School of Church Ministries at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the gender-neutral changes are especially important to evangelicals.
Evangelicals believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture. We believe every word is inspired by God, not just the broad thought.
The CBMW, according to its website, was set up by a bunch of pastors in 1987:
In opposition to the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism, they [the pastors] articulated what is now known as the complementarian position which affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function.
In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 19th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
They don’t do themselves any favours do they? How on earth can they claim that their Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of their living God when they keep tweaking him/her/it?
March 19th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
They should stick to the King James version, loads of hate, murder and lots of other nasty stuff in there to hopefully put people off christianinsanity. All the NIV editors have done is to re-write for the zeitgeist, something that has been happening for centuries.
March 19th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
To discourage its use, all future translations of the fantasy, “The Bible”, should be made in (the original) Klingon.
March 19th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I don’t know what the CBMW is getting so worked up about – it really doesn’t matter what tweaks and twiddles are made to the bibble, it’s all a complete and utter load of old bollocks anyway.
March 19th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
I believe that is why the IsLames state the only good quran is in arabic ONLY.
Again I see this ‘new’ buyBull as just another example of xtains not wanting to admit THEY and only they determine their morality and then try to twist the buyBull to that.
They should wake up & smell the roses, and just become atheists – it makes thing a lot simpler.
March 19th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I quite like the cognitive dissonance of the CBMW quote. It literally says that they believe men and women are equal in god’s eyes, it is just that god decided men should lead women and women are not allowed to have certain roles in the church. They can argue black is white without even thinking. Oh, perhaps that is why it is so easy…
March 19th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
From page one of the original version:
Certainly not! All ‘blacks’ are descendants of Ham.
March 19th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
It’s the same old religious detestation of women unless they are for breeding, cooking, cleaning the house and being subservient to the men. As for the true bible I have met a fundie who believed, indeed insisted, that the KJ version was the true bible and god wrote this in English. This same charmer insisted that Jesus was white. His evidence: “Look at any pictures or painting of Jesus. He is always white.”
These men are emotionally warped and to add to that their brains are hopelessly addled by religion. I suppose any women who put up with them must have been brainwashed since childhood.
March 19th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
@Angela_K:
I agree. Next they’ll start removing crucial bible lessons for modern appeal, like don’t eat four-legged insects and you must burn your leftovers after three days. I’ve followed both rules my whole life and I’m doing great which proves their importance.
I say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
This is the worst idea since the publication of “The N-word of The Narcissus” (Seriously, that really happened).
March 19th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Slightly off topic,
I was out today with my father and as we passed an Evangelical church in Glasgow he looked at the banner outside the main building and said ‘What do you think about that?’
It was a banner for that piece of nonsense known as the ‘alpha course.’
The ad read as ‘Do you belive in God?’ Below it were the options yes/no/possibly.
I said ‘Typical of christians, they cannot give a balanced argument’ My father was a bit surprised and asked me ‘What’s wrong with yes/no/possibly?’ I replied ‘Why not yes/no/not likely?’ I then said ‘Two positive and one negative statements are hardly an unbiased statement, it sounds like the answer is already there.’
My father then said ‘I think you are over analysing this, lets go to the pub.’ I found that I could not argue with his last statement.
March 19th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
tony e
You sure you’re not confusing ‘probably’ with ‘possibly’? The first would be the opposite of ‘not likely’. The second, I’d read as neutral. Mind you, the pint still sounds like a better alternative.
March 19th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Ah, the bible. Always handy as a doorstop or as a tyre wedge when jacking the car up. Totally useless for anything else, no matter how it’s written.
March 19th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
If the Authorized Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it’s good enough for me.
And if you would like to know why this is the ONLY version upon which True Christians™ can rely, have a look at this website:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
March 19th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
AngieRS – I know of another use for a Bible. When I find a Gideon bible in a hotel room I like to annotate it and include a disclaimer on the first blank page.
So it can also pass a dull evening in a hotel.
March 20th, 2011 at 12:17 am
Daz,
You are probably/possibly right.
Stumbled across this, sorry it’s a bit off topic, again. I hope you all find it as funny as I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnZAex0475A
March 20th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Nice one, Thoreau,but why waste good ink?
March 20th, 2011 at 2:08 am
This whole thing is rather silly, because the Bible is rather silly.
The fundies do have a point, the original is quite problematic by modern standards. Editing it like this essentially admits it is bullcrap.
This actual Biblical content apparently puts ‘liberal’ Christians in an awkward spot, so instead of needing to explain away all the messy bits, they just make them disappear.
There is nothing ‘enlightened’ about this new translation, it’s just a pathetic whitewash of a hopeless book.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:14 am
Speaking of Bible alterations, the Jefferson Bible is being restored and will soon go on display at the Smithsonian.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....36639.html
http://blog.americanhistory.si.....bible.html
March 20th, 2011 at 3:09 am
A question, instead of egalatarianism can’t we use words like “equal rights”, and instead of zeitgiest, something like “modern perspective”? Dumb it down a little for the middle class?
The Bob and Tom Show had a soundbite that sounded much like Margaret Thatcher making the statement: “you can irradiate poop, and make it sterile, but it is still poop.”
To amend the bible in any way is eternity in hell according to John.
Help me with this Bjohn. It’s a verse at the end of Revelations that states to the effect: Anyone who alters a single word of this scroll is cursed. I can’t get the wording close enough to find it on Google.
Point being, if the bible is the inspired word of the true god, then why would anyone who believes that, want to alter it? Why would anyone who does not believe that make any decision but to shitcan it, unless, they are trying extend the monetary windfall well into human enlightenment, or at least our doubt and indecision.
Speaking of that Daz, and you too, Tony E, I want to sit down and get a pint of draft, too. I feel like you guys were conspicuously silent while Bjohn was really making me feel unwelcome. But look at you two, arguing over possible, probable, probably not. You were closet agnostics all along, now the truth is out. But, that’s what I think makes a real freethinker. Never believe anything that cannot be proven.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Fucking give it a rest NeoWolfe, you ignorant troll!
March 20th, 2011 at 8:34 am
The girl who posted this is a bit longwinded, but very entertaining!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiuKd_HslkQ
I notice in the comments that some wingnut tries to defend the Bible by stating that it doesn’t actually use the word “rape” in the passage referred to – doh!!
March 20th, 2011 at 8:42 am
I was alerted to that particular video on the following site, which is well worth visiting:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/
March 20th, 2011 at 9:31 am
It’s a start. But to get that Book really Holy they’ll have to pull out the scissors and start snipping. Actually, it won’t be so much a book then; more like confetti.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:11 am
NeoWolfe:
“I feel like you guys were conspicuously silent while Bjohn was really making me feel unwelcome.”
Erm have you noticed me being particularly willing to back away from an argument? If I’d disagreed with Barriejohn, and thought that you couldn’t defend your own position, or vice versa, I’d have spoken. Some things you say, I agree with, some things I don’t. Personally, I don’t think you’re a troll just because I disagree with some things you say, which is why I continue to speak to you, but you can be a little troll-like on occasion, such as when you say things like…
“But look at you two, arguing over possible, probable, probably not. You were closet agnostics all along, now the truth is out.”
I light-heartedly correct Tony on an unimportant word-definition, in an off-topic aside, and you think we’re arguing? Get a grip.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:18 am
barriejohn:
Ah, Patmos. Famed for its unusual herbs and strange mushrooms…
Ah, Glenn Beck. Famed for being just as whacked out as John, even without the unusual herbs and strange mushrooms…
March 20th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
NeoWolfe:
“I feel like you guys were conspicuously silent while Bjohn was really making me feel unwelcome.â€
I feel that is a pretty unfair comment. I realise that you and Barriejohn have some bad blood between you, but, lets be honest here, Bjohn has never made a comment that he could not back up.
This site, for me, is a joy, as it has allowed me to converse with people of a similar mindset. I will disagree when I think someone has talked nonsense but I will not take the side of one freethinker against another. That’s a ‘divide and conquer’ tactic that I would expect from a religious group.
For the record myself and Daz were just having a bit of banter, nothing sinister.
March 20th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
@tony e: You summarise my position on this. However, barriejohn has been a source of information to me, when I have made a reference and been unsure, that leaves me feeling grateful for his time, expertise and trouble. I am close to being a technophobe, which limits my own researches, and I say that with regret.
Like yourself this site is for me a pleasure as the swamping of the media and airwaves with religious propaganda can leave the atheist feeling isolated. I am happy that the internet and sites such as this have done so much to dispel the notion that we are a small minority and we are able to get our views heard and to share them with others of like mind.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
@broga,
Like yourself I have the highest regard for Barriejohn. I will not take sides against him or any of the regulars on this site as they have all contributed to making good intelligent debate possible.
I feel that the comment made by NeoWolfe against myself and Daz was unwarranted.
March 20th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
tony e said:
“I feel that the comment made by NeoWolfe against myself and Daz was unwarranted.”
I did not make any comment AGAINST either one of you. In fact, it was intended as a compliment. I was calling into question whether or not there really exists a real atheist. One presents a term that implies doubt, the other presents a case for a more accurate term, but still implying doubt. Just like any litigation, each is presenting an ARGUMENT, which does not imply malice, it implies debate. But, whichever side of the debate you favor, the doubt must remain. Doubt, necessarily infers that you are not certain, that YOU DON’T KNOW, which makes you an agnostic. That is not an insult, nor was it intended as such. It was intended to back up my ARGUMENT, that because science as yet does not know everything, a real freethinker is left with doubt.
As far as Bjohn is concerned, since you admit that you have doubts, why are you so silent when on this very thread, he said:
“Fucking give it a rest NeoWolfe, you ignorant troll!”
This demonstrates his obvious debating skills, his impecable logic, and his persuasive diplomacy.
I will give him this, he finds some really interesting stuff on the internet, meaningful stuff. He also has a knowledge of the bible that he has demonstrated is greater than mine, which is significant, because mine is quite formidable. But, his attitude toward doubters, which you admit you are, is an overcompensation for his hatred of his own doubts. He’s like me, a recovering fundy, and no matter how carefully he cleans his mind, the stains remain. As well they should, because, as much as we would love to be certain, not enough facts are available to achieve that goal.
And you guys are overly defensive, wearing a chip on your shoulder. Mellow out.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
NeoWolfe:
So please explain what part of “I feel like you guys were conspicuously silent while Bjohn was really making me feel unwelcome†did I misunderstand? How, exactly, can it be taken as a compliment?
I would also be grateful if you stopped referring to me as an agnostic. I do not have any doubts on the non existance of a god, which the term agnostic would suggest, and if you feel you have to categorize me then use the term atheist. I would also like you to point out where I have expressed these doubts as you have constantly referred to them in your thread.
I would also ask you to stop trying to cause division, for whatever reason, between Barriejohn and the other members of this site.
March 20th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
I quote tony e:
“I replied ‘Why not yes/no/not likely?”
If you had left it at yes/no and chosen “no” then you would be an atheist. You proposed “not likely” as I would have chosen. You did not state it, but, it implies that your choice would have been the third option. Me, too. But, what that reveals is that you have doubts, and therefore you ARE an agnostic whether you want to label yourself as such or not. Call yourself whatever stage name you want, my name is not NeoWolfe, that is not a crime. But, by definition you are an agnostic whether you like it or not.
No shame, by the same scale, Dawkins is an agnostic as well.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Tweaking the bible to make it seem less of a brutal handbook of repression? What’s the point of that? Of course the fundies are right, theirs is the world view the bible supports. And it certainly isn’t going to fool the rest of us into thinking this book has a moral or ethical message which is worth hearing.
March 20th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
NeoWolfe:
The point I was trying to make was that the options mentioned were 2/1 in of favour of a god, why not the other way? I was trying to make a point that I felt it was not a neutral statement, I appreciate this may have gone over your head.
Again I ask that you stop referring to me as an agnostic, to me, it’s a small but important point. You may have doubts, I do not.
March 20th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
tony e said:
“You may have doubts, I do not.”
Your post betrays you. But, if you do not have doubts, then you must necessarily believe that you have concluded that which modern science has been unable to do. That makes you guilty of religion. Good luck with that.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
NeoWolfe:
To qoute from Barriejohn: ‘Fucking give it a rest NeoWolfe, you ignorant troll!’
March 20th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Seriously NeoWolfe, give it a rest with your anti-atheist obsession. You’ve got issues.
March 20th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I rest my case, that those who occupy this domain are self labeled by a misnomer. Freethinker does not fit you. You have found a new fundamentalism, and no logic can reach you. Good luck with your new religion.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
NeoWolfe – What the fuck is it with you? Seriously!? You seem to want to criticise or pick a trivial argument with just about anybody and everybody who contributes to this site. Especially, it seems, barriejohn. Personally, I find the vast majority of what barriejohn posts here to be really informative and interesting. And given he has managed to escape the clutches of religion to become a ‘freethinker’ (a term which you seem to wear like a fucking swastika armband), for me gives the rest of us a unique perspective into the thinking of those whom all of us here supposedly deplore.
Fuck knows why, but you seem to think you are intellectually and morally superior to us all – something which your diatribes betray on a mind-numbingly regular basis. Quite frankly, I suspect you are a god-bothering troll who just comes here to stir things up.l Please go away.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Marcus said:
but you seem to think you are intellectually and morally superior to us all
Bullshit!!! I simply admit that I don’t know everything. And while you claim to be freethinkers, you claim that god or any unexplained phenomenon doesn’t exist, I simply await your scientific evidence.
And morals, this forum is open. If you disagree with me, present your case, or shut the fuck up.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
NeoWolfe:
I love the way you insist that anyone not thinking just like you, or applying the labels to themselves that you think they should, isn’t a freethinker. Could it be that the irony of this escapes you? What’s more you’ve taken a small point in what both Tony and myself have made clear was a bit of banter, and tried to expand it into some major philosophical treatise about why we’re wrong in our self-labelling. Oh, and twisting the sense of what we were talking about while you did so. We were referring to the neutrality, or not, of the banner, not the existence of beardy men in the sky.
“you claim that god or any unexplained phenomenon doesn’t exist”
Jesus (to coin a phrase) fucking Christ! I see this crappy argument often enough from fundies pretending to be oh-so-reasonable merely-deists, just before they make a huge logical leap from ‘some sort of creator is a logical necessity’ (it isn’t), to ‘the Christian god is the only true god and the Bible is his unerring word’. I do not need to see it from you.
I claim it doesn’t exist because I’ve not only never seen any evidence that a god exists, but I’ve never seen any evidence that it can possibly exist. Godhood is a man-made concept.
Now, STFU unless you have something to say that I’ve not seen before.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
“And morals, this forum is open. If you disagree with me, present your case, or shut the fuck up.”
NeoWolfe that weed is showing again. I thought you promised to play nice.
I think we all now accept a definition of Atheist as one who denies the existence of gods rather than one who can prove their non existence. What’s that about morals?
March 20th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Daz said:
” I love the way you insist that anyone not thinking just like you, or applying the labels to themselves that you think they should, isn’t a freethinker.”
Bullshit!! again. I was just quoting what you said, and what a dictionary defines you as. You and Dawkins can call yourself atheists if that is how you want to be labeled, the rest is just semantics. But, the idea that science provides you with definitive proof of origin, you can tatoo yourself with the word, “atheist”, but until science knows more than it does now, you may as well tatoo yourself with the word “fundy”. Equally applicable. You could call yourself a sci-fundy. Or live the lie, and call yourself an atheist. I won’t be your judge.
NeoWolfe
March 20th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“I won’t be your judge.”
Really? You’ve just about taken over this whole board to just that.
I claim no ‘proof’ of origin, I just point to the theory with the most supporting evidence. As Dave Gilbert points out above, I do not need to prove a negative. As for calling people fundies, I’d point out that you’re the one dragging out all the tired old arguments used by fundies everywhere. What’s next, Pascal’s Wager?
You might want to read this, before trotting out yet another trope. Oh, and let’s keep this on the one thread, eh? Its (a) easier to follow that way, and (b) less disruptive.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
NeoWolfe:
Why the obsession with agnostic/atheist?
You also have a problem with science, to qoute yourself ‘the idea that science provides you with definitive proof of origin.’ and ‘science as yet does not know everything.’
The difference between science and fairy stories is that science is self critical and trys to find the truth even if it challanges established thinking.
You have presented yourself as a recovering fundie, but your twin obsessions with sowing dissent and science have revealed you to be otherwise. You are not a recovering fundie, I think you still are.
To be really pedantic, and get the point across, this site is called ‘Freethinker – the voice of ATHEISM’
Now, it’s Sunday, time for you to go back to church
March 20th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Damn. “Your comment is awaiting moderation”
I won’t repeat it all, except to say you make the same damn over-used and oft-debunked arguments that I see from fundies all the time. You may have dropped the religion, but you’ve not rethought any of the other bullshit.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
@ Tony e
Regarding the Alpha Course, this may have been posted here before, but even if it has, I expect there are some who may have missed it. This is a fantastic read.
http://alphacoursereview.wordp.....ha-course/
All 12 parts are linked to on the right. Make sure you read from the bottom link up, as they are posted with the last entry first.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
NeoWolfe – “And while you claim to be freethinkers, you claim that god or any unexplained phenomenon doesn’t exist, I simply await your scientific evidence.”
What the fuck are you on about?! You really have no idea what this concept of ‘freethinking’ is about, do you. Now, just FUCK OFF, you troll.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Pete H:
Nice one,thanks. I had missed that.
*Settles back for a long read*
March 20th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Pete H – cheers mate.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
There was a fascinating series on TV following some people who attended the Alpha Course – most of whom were seriously unimpressed, though one or two did get somewhat sucked in (that’s how it works). I was amazed that they now terminate the course with an effort to get attendees “speaking in tongues”, as I would have walked out at that stage as a Christian.
Great comment from that link:
The reason you haven’t been “beaten up†yet is because your judgement won’t happen until after you die. While you’re still alive you are being given chance after chance to repent. If you have already made up your mind, please at least admit that after you die and if there is a God that you deserve to go to hell. Will you at least admit that? Yes, you can defy God, you can murder, cheat, steal, rape people as well but you will be rightfully judged. So go for it, keep mocking God, keep committing crimes but at least admit that you deserve to go to hell and punished more harshly.
Once again, unbelievers must necessarily be the people guilty of the most heinous crimes in society!
March 21st, 2011 at 12:21 am
barriejohn,
About 4 years ago I was invited to attend an alpha course by a well meaning evangelical friend who stated ‘once you speak with these guys you will not be so sure of your atheism, they will be able to answer any question you have!!’
He was right, they were able to answer any question I had – as long as the answer could be ‘if it is in the bible then it must be true.’
March 21st, 2011 at 12:51 am
@tony e: Sadly, I was just like that once. I was so smug and self-satisfied that it must have put people right off, but I didn’t realize it at the time!
March 21st, 2011 at 2:17 am
Just how true are all these reinterpreted, translated, updated, refreshed etc versions of the holly book? Seems that we’re getting to the stage of every single person that wants a version to reflect their particular religious foibles will find one that fits. What’s really needed is a de-hated and de-biggoted version to err.. appear in the bookstore. Only problem, it would be about three pages long. That would make it much cheaper to print and distribute which could mean getting even more of the bloody thing into the market place. Perhaps they could publish it as a flyer.
March 21st, 2011 at 3:29 pm
All Christian groups have had their own favoured translations which support their own doctrinal positions. Even more perplexing is the fact that the “original” scriptures vary so much, so what is the point of all those lexicons and concordances, and all that study of the very words that “God” uttered, when we can’t be sure what the actual words were in any case?
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:21 am
tony e said:
“Why the obsession with agnostic/atheist?”
Well, it’s not an obsession. It’s a result of a series of events. I joined this site for intelligent conversation, and philosophical debate. But, the first time I said, that while I am a freethinker, I do not label myself as an atheist, and I explained why, that while science has marched forward far enough to prove that organized religion of every brand is beneath consideration. While we can put that behind us, Jehovah, nor Zeus, nor Allah, nor Thor, nor Quetsaquatl, nor the Great Spirit, are, nor are able to interfere with the affairs of men. Science has set us free.
My point was, and is, did we learn our lesson? What was our mistake when we believed in that shit? Was it assuming the truth of explanations for things not understood nor proven to be true? I may anticipate that science will eventually understand that the universe, with its built-in mechanism of evolution, is an accident. But, I will not adopt it as a belief until it is proven. So it’s in my, “I don’t know file.”
In a forum of atheists, I understood, and even welcomed debate on my viewpoint. But, from day one, I was labeled a troll, insulted, and the chorus’ most vocal singer was Bjohn. I have fought for my spot here, though I should have never needed to, by defending my point of view which logic and reason.
I caught you admitting that you really didn’t KNOW either, and I asked you, where the hell were you when Bjohn was treating me like shit, because I said “I don’t know” is the only honest and scientific answer?” And you interpret that as an attack? I’m mystified. And you accuse ME of obsession? Further quote from you:
“Now, it’s Sunday, time for you to go back to church”
I don’t believe anything unproven by science, but, if you claim you have no doubts, bring a few bucks for the collection plate.
NeoWolfe
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:04 am
Dave Gilbert said:
“NeoWolfe that weed is showing again. I thought you promised to play nice.”
I stand by my apology to you. I lashed out at you when some software somewhere pissed me off. Inappropriate.
But, after multiple times being called a troll, there needed to be a line drawn this time. When I caught a couple of atheists revealing that they are just like me, freethinkers who admit that they don’t know everything, and are okay with that, I brought it to their attention, and asked them why they left me standing alone while Bjohn attempted to make me feel I was unworthy of contributing here for expressing that opinion.
I actually admired them for admitting their doubts, and never meant to insult them, I meant to say, “see, you really are my brother, we are not so different, if at all.” It became a thread of accusation of attack. Whatever? I guess, if being accused of admitting your doubts is cause for all out war, then atheists live in a denial realm which I don’t, nor care to understand. Please forgive me for not playing nice. Religion has a way of forcing you to fight on it’s own battlefield.
NeoWolfe
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:27 am
NeoWolfe
I do not intend for this to become another protracted conversation. I simply can’t be bothered. That said, if you honestly want to take part in the conversation, instead of merely lecturing at us, I suggest you get out of your head this idea that ‘science’ needs to prove anything. That’s not how it works. If you want proofs, look to mathematics. Science points to the best available explanation, based on the available evidence. What it, and we, don’t do is leave our minds so open to any evidence-less possibility going (like gods or orbiting teapots), that the wind blows through our ears.
Your constant appeals to ‘it hasn’t been disproved’ and ‘there’s always a possibility that…’ do nothing to further the discussion and frankly mark you as being religious, whether you profess to believe in gods or not. If you truly have given up belief in gods, then good for you. Maybe now you could start on examining the rest of the beliefs that stemmed from that belief, ’cause you sure haven’t lost them yet.
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:23 am
Well, Daz,
I wrote a three part indictment of your comment, and this site’s software dumped it into oblivion again. I guess atheists are afraid of the first draft.
You said:
“I suggest you get out of your head this idea that ‘science’ needs to prove anything”
Well, I’m still in my fucking head, only pissed with this website. If you think science doesn’t need to prove anything, you put a lot of people out of work. And you call me a troll? Science is our guide out of this human mess, and you said what?
“Your constant appeals to ‘it hasn’t been disproved’ and ‘there’s always a possibility that…’ do nothing to further the discussion and frankly mark you as being religious.”
Before bduke’s inferior software deleted my last response, you would have needed an ego transplant. I will suffice it to ask, which is more a mark of being religious, to reject anything unproven by science, or to accept best evidence?
The original was carefully and logically written, but it was shit into the ether. Those who believe in their logic and their cause would not need to play those games. Unless they were assholes, true?
NeoWolfe