New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed

[turzovka]

Shame on me, I spent the nine minutes. On the other hand, I pity you. You embrace this kind of talk? You dare blaspheme G-d by being part of the laughter? What a nervous, stupid audience I might add.

Incidentally, (and you can share it with that humorless pitiful “comedian”) very few Christians, and no Catholics, declare the earth was created in seven 24 hour days, nor do we claim modern man roamed with the dinosaurs --- but then, that would ruin his jokes now wouldn’t it?

So which was it orogenicman, did micro-organisms turn into human beings via gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium? Since it’s so proven and obvious the answer should be a no-brainer to Stephen Gould?

 

[orogenicman]

Shame on me, I spent the nine minutes. On the other hand, I pity you. You embrace this kind of talk? You dare blaspheme G-d by being part of the laughter? What a nervous, stupid audience I might add.

Incidentally, (and you can share it with that humorless pitiful “comedian”) very few Christians, and no Catholics, declare the earth was created in seven 24 hour days, nor do we claim modern man roamed with the dinosaurs --- but then, that would ruin his jokes now wouldn’t it?

So which was it orogenicman, did micro-organisms turn into human beings via gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium? Since it’s so proven and obvious the answer should be a no-brainer to Stephen Gould?

Well, it is certainly true that most Catholics don't declare that the Earth was created in seven days. But then, most catholics believe that the theory of evolution has merit, and are actually taught real science in their schools. But to suggest that plenty of other Christians don't declare that the Earth was created in seven days is, at best, naïve. Certainly it goes without saying that many Christians do, in fact, believe verbatim the genesis tale of creation.

I dare blaspheme? That's an amusing, if not arrogant, accusation. It not only assumes that I believe as you do, but demands that I MUST believe as you do. Which, of course, is utter nonsense. Welcome to the real world where people don't simply do or act as you demand because you and/or your religious dogma demand it.

The fact is that the biologic evidence shows that all life on this planet is genetically related. ALL OF IT. This is not an unambiguous statement. And the only viable scientific explanation for this fact is the theory of evolution. Now, you may feel a need to believe that life somehow poofed into existence by an act of some magical alpha male living in the sky, and if that makes your day, have at it; but if that is the only explanation you can think of, I don't need you in my lab, and I certainly don't need you telling me how to run it or how to teach science in the classroom.

 

[turzovka]

Well, it is certainly true that most Catholics don't declare that the Earth was created in seven days. But then, most catholics believe that the theory of evolution has merit, and are actually taught real science in their schools. But to suggest that plenty of other Christians don't declare that the Earth was created in seven days is, at best, naïve. Certainly it goes without saying that many Christians do, in fact, believe verbatim the genesis tale of creation.

Even if they do, this is a minor point of contention and does not address core Christian dogma and other critical teachings. This is where we are judged, both believer and unbeliever alike.


The fact is that the biologic evidence shows that all life on this planet is genetically related. ALL OF IT. This is not an unambiguous statement. And the only viable scientific explanation for this fact is the theory of evolution. Now, you may feel a need to believe that life somehow poofed into existence by an act of some magical alpha male living in the sky, and if that makes your day, have at it; but if that is the only explanation you can think of, I don't need you in my lab, and I certainly don't need you telling me how to run it or how to teach science in the classroom.

This is not the only viable scientific explanation, it is junk science. Just because our DNA closely resembles that of a monkey proves nothing! Like I said, there are grand masters of evolution like Gould and Stanley who claim your gradual evolution claims are without any fossil or empirical evidence. That is what I call junk science, but we have to swallow it as students in the classroom even though Gould and Stanley call it bunk.


I dare blaspheme? That's an amusing, if not arrogant, accusation. It not only assumes that I believe as you do, but demands that I MUST believe as you do. Which, of course, is utter nonsense. Welcome to the real world where people don't simply do or act as you demand because you and/or your religious dogma demand it.

I can forgive you, but I have no authority in me to exonerate you. Which is why I caution you.

John 9:39-41
"I came into this world," said Jesus, "to judge men, that those who do not see may see, and that those who do see may become blind." These words were heard by those of the Pharisees who were present, and they asked Him, "Are *we* also blind?" "If you were blind," answered Jesus, "you would have no sin; but as a matter of fact you boast that you see. So your sin remains!"

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

 

[orogenicman]

Well, it is certainly true that most Catholics don't declare that the Earth was created in seven days. But then, most catholics believe that the theory of evolution has merit, and are actually taught real science in their schools. But to suggest that plenty of other Christians don't declare that the Earth was created in seven days is, at best, naïve. Certainly it goes without saying that many Christians do, in fact, believe verbatim the genesis tale of creation.

Even if they do, this is a minor point of contention and does not address core Christian dogma and other critical teachings. This is where we are judged, both believer and unbeliever alike.

No, actually, it isn't a minor point of contention, otherwise, you Christians would not have spent tens of millions of dollars building and marketing a creation museum that caters to the ignorance of tens of thousands of Christians and promotes it s a viable scientific alternative to the biological theory of evolution. There wouldn't be the fight at the school board level insisting that creationism be given equal time in the science classroom as the theory of evolution. Minor point of contention? What have you been smoking these past 20 years or more?

This is not the only viable scientific explanation, it is junk science. Just because our DNA closely resembles that of a monkey proves nothing! Like I said, there are grand masters of evolution like Gould and Stanley who claim your gradual evolution claims are without any fossil or empirical evidence. That is what I call junk science, but we have to swallow it as students in the classroom even though Gould and Stanley call it bunk..

Actually, it is. I have not commented on either Gould or Stanley; nor have I commented on gradual evolution versus punctuated equilibrium. That being the case, the only conclusion I can come to in order to explain how you managed to come to the conclusion you did regarding what I do and don't subscribe to with regard to the theory of evolution is that you simply made it up. And that is, frankly, dishonest.

That said, whether we are talking about gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium, we are still talking about evolution, which neither man refuted nor denied the existence of. As for fossil evidence, I must ask, do you have a fossil collection? Being a geologist, I have a rather extensive collection, and have access to even more extensive public holdings. I will make you the same offer I've made every creationist and religious person who has made to me the claim that "evolution claims are without any fossil or empirical evidence". And that offer is to go on a geologic field trip with me and I will show you the fossil evidence first hand that you claim does not exist. To date, and not surprising, none have been willing to put their money where their mouths are. So what about you? Are you willing to take the risk? The only thing you have to lose is your blind faith in dogmatic reasoning.

I can forgive you, but I have no authority in me to exonerate you. Which is why I caution you.

John 9:39-41
"I came into this world," said Jesus, "to judge men, that those who do not see may see, and that those who do see may become blind." These words were heard by those of the Pharisees who were present, and they asked Him, "Are *we* also blind?" "If you were blind," answered Jesus, "you would have no sin; but as a matter of fact you boast that you see. So your sin remains!"

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

Now that's just rather sad, quoting scripture because you cannot think for yourself.

 

[turzovka]

No, actually, it isn't a minor point of contention, otherwise, you Christians would not have spent tens of millions of dollars building and marketing a creation museum that caters to the ignorance of tens of thousands of Christians and promotes it s a viable scientific alternative to the biological theory of evolution. There wouldn't be the fight at the school board level insisting that creationism be given equal time in the science classroom as the theory of evolution. Minor point of contention? What have you been smoking these past 20 years or more?

Well then let me explain it to you in a different way. First of all, the Catholic Church has never taken a formal position on evolution even if some their misguided biologist or paleontologist clergy publicly have. But the reason I and many Christians strongly object to the teaching of evolution is because it is taught in a way (covertly or inadvertently) to suggest to wide-eyed student that this all could have happened without an intelligent designer. In other words, they are putting forth theories as facts and the way they are teaching it goes well beyond just evolution science but suggests to the ambivalents there is no need for God. This is where the danger lies. This is why we contest your “facts.”


Actually, it is. I have not commented on either Gould or Stanley; nor have I commented on gradual evolution versus punctuated equilibrium. That being the case, the only conclusion I can come to in order to explain how you managed to come to the conclusion you did regarding what I do and don't subscribe to with regard to the theory of evolution is that you simply made it up. And that is, frankly, dishonest.

Oh, you can get over yourself or the assumed “slight” by just saying “I am not sure” for your answer.

That said, whether we are talking about gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium, we are still talking about evolution, which neither man refuted nor denied the existence of.

Yes, I get it, and so what? The point is, since the high priests of evolution strongly contradict each other as to how evolution may have happened ---- BECAUSE THEY DENY ANY EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THE OTHER CAMP CLAIMS --- this is EVIDENCE to me that there is no evidence for evolution ever having occurred! If some of the science experts say “no evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record” and the other masters say “no evidence for punctuated equilibrium” --- then there is no evidence it ever occurred! Period!! Unless you have a third manner?

Which is exactly what Stephen Gould (no doubt reluctantly yet honestly) meant when he said this [quote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”]

As for fossil evidence, I must ask, do you have a fossil collection? Being a geologist, I have a rather extensive collection, and have access to even more extensive public holdings. I will make you the same offer I've made every creationist and religious person who has made to me the claim that "evolution claims are without any fossil or empirical evidence". And that offer is to go on a geologic field trip with me and I will show you the fossil evidence first hand that you claim does not exist. To date, and not surprising, none have been willing to put their money where their mouths are. So what about you? Are you willing to take the risk? The only thing you have to lose is your blind faith in dogmatic reasoning.

What do I care about your fossils? They are fully formed species, the kind God creates. Now if you can find a transitional one, you know like the one between an eagle and a gila monster, now you have something.


John 9:39-41 …but as a matter of fact you boast that you see. So your sin remains!"
Now that's just rather sad, quoting scripture because you cannot think for yourself.

Another useless charge by the agnostic crowd. All I was doing by quoting Scripture was expounding on why I accused you of engaging in blasphemy. It is no big mystery. You intelligent Americans have been exposed to the gospels, the preaching, and the reasons for the Judeo-Christian G-d as the one true God. You have been shown many miracles which validate the claims. You have rejected all for any number of reasons --- mostly I claim to be either pride or so one can carry on with all their vices and feel no accountability. So Jesus made clear in those passages that the ignorant are not guilty, but the learned and proud are. Take caution, as a wise Christian would as well.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All I was doing by quoting Scripture was expounding on why I accused you of engaging in blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a religious "sin". How many of your fellow Christians have "blasphemed" about Islam even though both religions worship the same God? They have "sinned" but you don't level that accusation at them. Can you explain why you only fling that accusation at atheists?

 

[Avatar4321]

Sounds like this "new" atheism is just the same old tricks the adversary has been pulling for millenia. Always criticizing never creating

 

[daws101]

Sounds like this "new" atheism is just the same old tricks the adversary has been pulling for millenia. Always criticizing never creating

not the adversary shit again!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

I don't see how this statement expounds on how Oro was blaspheming. Read this again and then think about it in the context of the argument you're making.

Twice, Jesus himself gives Oro an out. He says that if he hadn't spoken to them, they would not be guilty, and if he had never performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, then they would not be guilty of sin. Essentially, the people he's accusing of blasphemy and hating God in these verses are only guilty of such because they spoke with Jesus and watched him perform miracles and continued to blaspheme.

Now, I know I'm making an assumption here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Jesus probably never made a personal appearance to Oro. Not to speak to him about God, not to perform any miracles. Just nothing. I make this assumption because, other than the occasional, "I saw the face of Jesus in my bowl of cornflakes!" nutjobs, nobody's claimed to have spoken directly with the guy since the Mormons.

So Jesus himself said that, since Oro hasn't been spoken to directly, and since Jesus hasn't done works among Oro that no one has ever done before, Jesus himself says that Oro can't be guilty of blasphemy. Do you know more about Christian blasphemy than Jesus? I'm pretty sure -that's- blasphemy.

 

[orogenicman]

No, actually, it isn't a minor point of contention, otherwise, you Christians would not have spent tens of millions of dollars building and marketing a creation museum that caters to the ignorance of tens of thousands of Christians and promotes it s a viable scientific alternative to the biological theory of evolution. There wouldn't be the fight at the school board level insisting that creationism be given equal time in the science classroom as the theory of evolution. Minor point of contention? What have you been smoking these past 20 years or more?

Well then let me explain it to you in a different way. First of all, the Catholic Church has never taken a formal position on evolution even if some their misguided biologist or paleontologist clergy publicly have. But the reason I and many Christians strongly object to the teaching of evolution is because it is taught in a way (covertly or inadvertently) to suggest to wide-eyed student that this all could have happened without an intelligent designer. In other words, they are putting forth theories as facts and the way they are teaching it goes well beyond just evolution science but suggests to the ambivalents there is no need for God. This is where the danger lies. This is why we contest your “facts.”

Well, let me explain it to you as a former Catholic who spent nine years in Catholic schools, the Catholic Church not only does not reject evolution, it teaches evolutionary biology in its schools. Catholic elementary and high schools is where I had my first exposure to it.

Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces. Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul.

You didn't know this? Huh.

Yes, I get it, and so what?

Obviously you don't judging by the ignorance of your response below:

The point is, since the high priests of evolution strongly contradict each other as to how evolution may have happened ---- BECAUSE THEY DENY ANY EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THE OTHER CAMP CLAIMS --- this is EVIDENCE to me that there is no evidence for evolution ever having occurred! If some of the science experts say “no evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record” and the other masters say “no evidence for punctuated equilibrium” --- then there is no evidence it ever occurred! Period!! Unless you have a third manner?

What evidence, where? The other camp, as you call them (I assume you are referring to creationists) have no evidence, and not a single peer reviewed scientific publication under their belts. What you are describing is a typical discussion among scientists, which, in this case, occurred 40 years ago, and has long since been resolved. That you haven't kept up with the discussion is no one's problem but yours.

Which is exactly what Stephen Gould (no doubt reluctantly yet honestly) meant when he said this [quote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”]

Quote mining scientists is the primary trade of creationists, and frankly, the only argument (and a very lame one) that they can make. That's just sad.

What do I care about your fossils? They are fully formed species, the kind God creates. Now if you can find a transitional one, you know like the one between an eagle and a gila monster, now you have something.

Gee, that' wasn't an expected response - NOT. The argument about transitional species is a spurious argument - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. Secondly, if an eagle could transition into a gila monster, that would REFUTE EVOLUTION. You didn't know this because you are willfully ignorant and blinded by your religious dogma. And finally, that you have chosen to ignore or refuse my offer to take you on a geology field trip is a typically creationist response, one I've come to expect because I know that you people will never take me up on the offer because you are all cowards, hiding behind your bling faith, too afraid to face the real world. You have my sympathy, truly you do.

Another useless charge by the agnostic crowd. All I was doing by quoting Scripture was expounding on why I accused you of engaging in blasphemy. It is no big mystery. You intelligent Americans have been exposed to the gospels, the preaching, and the reasons for the Judeo-Christian G-d as the one true God. You have been shown many miracles which validate the claims. You have rejected all for any number of reasons --- mostly I claim to be either pride or so one can carry on with all their vices and feel no accountability. So Jesus made clear in those passages that the ignorant are not guilty, but the learned and proud are. Take caution, as a wise Christian would as well.

 

[emilynghiem]

New atheism sounds like the Old atheism.

What's wrong with NON THEISM?

Why does it have to be A THEISM?

Nontheists can take the SAME scientific approaches that Atheists respect,
and PROVE the effects and process of prayer, spiritual healing, and forgiveness
on people's health from the mind to physical body and relationships in society.

So NO ONE has to be 'Anti' God or 'Anti' Theist
to prove the same concepts taught in religion are universal by using science instead of relying on faith based religion which is relative to those groups.

These do not need to be adverse to each other!

And I agree with the idea of rational argument as a check and balance;
if this were applied equally to scientific as religious biases,
then such atheists would not need to come across as [asses].
It's when people on either side get so biased they start attacking the other for the same,
then they BOTH come across as [asses]. Scientific proof can level the field as an equalizer.

 

[orogenicman]

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

I don't see how this statement expounds on how Oro was blaspheming. Read this again and then think about it in the context of the argument you're making.

Twice, Jesus himself gives Oro an out. He says that if he hadn't spoken to them, they would not be guilty, and if he had never performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, then they would not be guilty of sin. Essentially, the people he's accusing of blasphemy and hating God in these verses are only guilty of such because they spoke with Jesus and watched him perform miracles and continued to blaspheme.

Now, I know I'm making an assumption here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Jesus probably never made a personal appearance to Oro. Not to speak to him about God, not to perform any miracles. Just nothing. I make this assumption because, other than the occasional, "I saw the face of Jesus in my bowl of cornflakes!" nutjobs, nobody's claimed to have spoken directly with the guy since the Mormons.

So Jesus himself said that, since Oro hasn't been spoken to directly, and since Jesus hasn't done works among Oro that no one has ever done before, Jesus himself says that Oro can't be guilty of blasphemy. Do you know more about Christian blasphemy than Jesus? I'm pretty sure -that's- blasphemy.

The concept of blasphemy is nothing more that the effort of religious zealots to squelch dissent. Otherwise, how could a puny human being such as myself offend an omnipotent "creator of the universe", particularly one for whose existence there appears to be a total lack of evidence?

If astronomy teaches us nothing else, it is how utterly small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

 

[Alfalfa]

New atheism sounds like the Old atheism.

What's wrong with NON THEISM?

Why does it have to be A THEISM?

Nontheists can take the SAME scientific approaches that Atheists respect,
and PROVE the effects and process of prayer, spiritual healing, and forgiveness
on people's health from the mind to physical body and relationships in society.

So NO ONE has to be 'Anti' God or 'Anti' Theist
to prove the same concepts taught in religion are universal by using science instead of relying on faith based religion which is relative to those groups.

These do not need to be adverse to each other!

And I agree with the idea of rational argument as a check and balance;
if this were applied equally to scientific as religious biases,
then such atheists would not need to come across as [asses].
It's when people on either side get so biased they start attacking the other for the same,
then they BOTH come across as [asses]. Scientific proof can level the field as an equalizer.

Atheism is non-theism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

New atheism sounds like the Old atheism.

What's wrong with NON THEISM?

Why does it have to be A THEISM?

Nontheists can take the SAME scientific approaches that Atheists respect,
and PROVE the effects and process of prayer, spiritual healing, and forgiveness
on people's health from the mind to physical body and relationships in society.

So NO ONE has to be 'Anti' God or 'Anti' Theist
to prove the same concepts taught in religion are universal by using science instead of relying on faith based religion which is relative to those groups.

These do not need to be adverse to each other!

And I agree with the idea of rational argument as a check and balance;
if this were applied equally to scientific as religious biases,
then such atheists would not need to come across as [asses].
It's when people on either side get so biased they start attacking the other for the same,
then they BOTH come across as [asses]. Scientific proof can level the field as an equalizer.

Hi Emily, LTNS

We (you and I) agree that there are positive "healing" aspects to meditation and spiritualism even though quantifying them is not an exact science.

Atheists are neither anti-God nor anti-theism at all. If anything the antipathy stems from the theist side towards atheists.

But we agree that there is no need for any adversity. If we deal with the issues in a positive and rational manner we can find a way for a peaceful co-existence.

Peace
DT

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

I don't see how this statement expounds on how Oro was blaspheming. Read this again and then think about it in the context of the argument you're making.

Twice, Jesus himself gives Oro an out. He says that if he hadn't spoken to them, they would not be guilty, and if he had never performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, then they would not be guilty of sin. Essentially, the people he's accusing of blasphemy and hating God in these verses are only guilty of such because they spoke with Jesus and watched him perform miracles and continued to blaspheme.

Now, I know I'm making an assumption here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Jesus probably never made a personal appearance to Oro. Not to speak to him about God, not to perform any miracles. Just nothing. I make this assumption because, other than the occasional, "I saw the face of Jesus in my bowl of cornflakes!" nutjobs, nobody's claimed to have spoken directly with the guy since the Mormons.

So Jesus himself said that, since Oro hasn't been spoken to directly, and since Jesus hasn't done works among Oro that no one has ever done before, Jesus himself says that Oro can't be guilty of blasphemy. Do you know more about Christian blasphemy than Jesus? I'm pretty sure -that's- blasphemy.

The concept of blasphemy is nothing more that the effort of religious zealots to squelch dissent. Otherwise, how could a puny human being such as myself offend an omnipotent "creator of the universe", particularly one for whose existence there appears to be a total lack of evidence?

If astronomy teaches us nothing else, it is how utterly small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

My personal thoughts are pretty much the same regarding blasphemy and the Judeo-Christian God's apparent insecurity. I was simply allowing, for the sake of argument, the existence of such blasphemy to be a premise.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm consistently amazed that the work of biologists and paleontologists and geologists are constantly held up to scrutiny by people who have no background in any of the subjects and those same objections are held up as factual by people who also have no background in the fields...yet scientists are expected to bend over backwards to debate those people as though their ignorant objections have merit.

 

[daws101]

I'm consistently amazed that the work of biologists and paleontologists and geologists are constantly held up to scrutiny by people who have no background in any of the subjects and those same objections are held up as factual by people who also have no background in the fields...yet scientists are expected to bend over backwards to debate those people as though their ignorant objections have merit.

dumbing it down for the wilfully ignorant can be a pain in the ass.

 

[turzovka]

All I was doing by quoting Scripture was expounding on why I accused you of engaging in blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a religious "sin". How many of your fellow Christians have "blasphemed" about Islam even though both religions worship the same God? They have "sinned" but you don't level that accusation at them. Can you explain why you only fling that accusation at atheists?

Definition of blasphemy: great disrespect shown to God or to something held sacred or holy.(emphasis on the word “great” it has to be egregious)

If it turns out that Islam is the true religion of the one true God, then I would say many of us Christians are guilty of blasphemy. In fact, I would think we could be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, Hinduism, or others regardless if there is any validity to their religion or not. Our God would not approve of such disrespect, that much I know. So to answer your question, I do not only accuse atheists of the sin of blasphemy, however, they can be guilty of it regardless if they believe in God or not.

 

[turzovka]

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

I don't see how this statement expounds on how Oro was blaspheming. Read this again and then think about it in the context of the argument you're making.

Well, for starters, are we in agreement that Orogenicman was blaspheming? After all, that is larger matter here.

If Orogenicman was some clueless low intelligent wanderer who was only interested in base pleasures and lust, then he might not be guilty of blasphemy by making fun of godly stuff since his mind is incapable understanding the gravity of the subject. But the John verses I site (in my own interpretation only) appear to allude to the situation of someone who knows very well what is at stake, what is being taught, what is the evidence and reasons for it, and what is also possible consequences. Said individual allegedly mocks the whole idea by laughing out loud when tragic comedian calls G-d a prick. And all the related similar humor following. To that Jesus says (paraphrase) “you claim to know what is at stake and still do not care. Ok, fine, but now you are far more accountable for your actions and decisions.”

Essentially, the people he's accusing of blasphemy and hating God in these verses are only guilty of such because they spoke with Jesus and watched him perform miracles and continued to blaspheme.

I am not going to change all I wrote above now that I have read the rest of your post. No, we very much disagree. Jesus has spoken directly to orgogenicman and directly to you and me. We are not ignorant, far from it. Neither you nor attorney will ever be able to trick God or convince God that you had no idea what this was all about. Sorry, no chance, IMO.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sounds like this "new" atheism is just the same old tricks the adversary has been pulling for millenia. Always criticizing never creating

not the adversary shit again!

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.