In Defense of Oppression

Who doesn’t love rules?

The more strict and confining, the better!

Rules infringe on your freedom.

Rules stifle your creativity.

Often, the best rules are those that I find personally offensive.

I love board games for many, many reasons.

But my favorite things about games is the rules.

Because the rules are THE ONLY thing about games.

No rules = No Game

Written rules are always included in the game box.

Because game manufacturers don’t trust evolution.

A board game based on Naturalism would be a disaster.

The box would be full of cards, play money, dice, and plastic figures.

Instead of rules, there would be one paragraph:

“Players in close proximity to each other form a society. The game works better when everyone cooperates. Evolved societal norms will determine what to do with the contents of this box. Have fun!”

That could be a fun game for your family…

…if your family enjoys brawling.

Without rules, you can’t even answer the most basic game related question:

“Why am I playing this?”

Am I trying to get points?

Am I trying to get money?

Am I racing my little plastic boat toward an imaginary island?

Naturalism says, “Maybe.”

Another paper in the box helps clarify:

“Each player determines their own purpose and meaning.”

Ah…that makes everything crystal clear.

But…what happens when…

…your purpose is different from mine?

Easy!

We’re BOTH correct!

If evolution/naturalism can’t produce a board game…

…can they produce a workable civilization?

Civilizations always have stated rules.

They’re called ‘laws’.

The most troublesome rules come from religion.

Math and science contain rules too.

But those rules that aren’t subject to human whims.

Nobody can break the rules of physics or math.

“Hey! You’re flying without wings!  That’s cheating!”

We can only cheat the rules of religion.

Religion is unapologetically brimming with difficult rules.

Don’t kill.

Don’t steal.

Tell the truth.

Be kind.

These rules are universally accepted by everyone, everywhere…

…even among radically different cultures.

No culture sees ‘senseless cruelty’ as virtuous.

“Torture is how I derive my purpose!”

Mankind reads the same rulebook.

And that book wasn’t written by evolution.

The game maker put the rules inside of us.

 

I hate and abhor falsehood,
    but I love your law.
Seven times a day I praise you
    for your righteous rules.
 Great peace have those who love your law;
    nothing can make them stumble.  – Psalm 119:163

Twitch Youtube People-carry Telegram

You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.

Leave a comment

259 Responses

  1. Or you could try Piaget.
    I don’t think he was very funny but he seemed to know a fair amount about child development including morals and reciprocity.

    Reply

          1. I thought you performed to amateurs like me?
            Surely the object is to make the amateurs laugh?
            Although I will admit your attempt at theology is very funny. Perhaps you ought to incorporate more of this?

          2. Right. I make amateurs laugh all the time. And once in awhile an amateur tells me I’m not funny. I dismiss them as I did you.

  5. @Mrs Mc.

    Think of all the “good” we could have done–if any of these jokers were willing to admit that “good” was build into us by a good Source.

    Out of simple curiosity, just what is this (your) ”Source”?

    Reply

      1. Having joined this road show after a Heads Up I must be perfectly honest, I have not managed to work out what is actually going on here. By that, it seems that you can’t seem to make up your minds – the pair of you – whether you are aiming for a light-hearted, humorous approach to your god belief (faith) and having a good old dig at non-believers along the way- nothing wrong with this I might add – or this is really meant to be a subtle yet more serious approach to god-bothering..

        Having seen the responses to all and sundry I must say you are failing dismally at both and have rendered this blog neither funny nor informative in any shape or form.
        This may be why all but a couple of your 14,000 and then some followers appear to be lurking in the wings rather than coming to your aid or writing LMAO all over your comments.

        If you wish to demonstrate an honest approach to your faith then you need to educate yourself on the basics of theology at least. I suggest you read the bible then study it, as a great many atheists have. Or even take an online course through Ken Ham Ministries, or perhaps the William Lane Craig Reasonable Faith approach to Lying my Arse Off. That will at least give you a fighting chance in the discussion/debate ring instead of looking like George Foreman after Ali has just done the rope a dope trick on him.

        Or, if you are aiming for the more humorous aspect then maybe you ought to work on your routine before hand as this ad hoc, ad lib approach truly is not working at all. You might consider watching old videos of such comedy duos as Morcambe and Wise,
        You see, comedy is all about timing and especially if your are intent on being a double-act.

        Wish you the best.
        You’ll work it out I’m sure. And practice of course.

        Reply

          1. Well I am here now. Listening to some classic Johnny Winter and finishing up a bit oi editing before bedtime.

            Are we doing the funny approach or are you intent on serious discussion?

          2. You listened to the podcast, Ark. We’re broadcasting the things we talk about when we’re just hanging out at home. Anything goes.

            Whatever it is–you just can’t get enough, can you? 🙂

          3. If I’m brutally honest, after the first two minutes of listening to that totally amateurish drivel I skip-scanned the rest in about thirty seconds – except for when the kid got in on the act.

            Like I said, you really need to work on your routine.

          5. Well, I didn’t actually time how long I stayed on the podcast so it could have been about a minute or two in total. I did give you the benefit of the doubt at first, I promise, but then I gave up.
            It just wasn’t funny .. or even vaguely interesting. Sorry.

          8. I crave the truth. If it’s true that you absolutely hate all the conversations here, including the 90 seconds of audio you heard, then don’t hold back.

            Speak the truth!

          9. I just did. Is this not what you want to hear?
            Do you have a serious question you wanted to ask before I turn in or would you prefer a knock knock joke?

          10. I’ve asked you where you got the opinion that genocide is never justified over and over and over with no answer.

            So go ahead with the joke.

          11. I answered the genocide question. Did you not like the answer?
            Murder is wrong. Period. It even says so ion the bible, but then Yahweh is a lying hypocrite.

          12. You must think our readers are illiterate or something. They can go back and read all 200+ comments and see that you did NOT answer “why?” or “where did that opinion come from?”

            You and JZ (and, really, all the Atheists) have this annoying habit of claiming you’ve covered this stuff until you actually start believing yourselves. But “period” isn’t an answer where I come from.

            Looks like YOU’RE the one guilty of “because I said so”…

          13. Morality is built upon reciprocity, thus if you are nice it is generally likely that any normal person will be nice in return, thus relationships grow and thus the tribe, society etc.
            Stability and growth.
            This behaviour can be witnessed throughout much of the animal kingdom.

          14. Oh, we’re sooooo clooooose!

            Yes, I totally agree with you that most (“normal”) people have an instinct to be “nice.” But I have said it’s because it was wired into us, with the purpose of helping us find God.

            God is perfect truth and perfect goodness.

            I assume you want to move toward truth and goodness, too.

          15. Ah, then you must demonstrate that this derives from god as all we have – atheists and theists alike – is observable behaviour.

          17. Now you are trying to get theological and doing a lousy job once more.
            It is not the job of the atheist to demonstrate any god otherwise I would be a theist like you.

          18. You’ve already demonstrated God, Ark.
            You believe truth is knowable.
            You’re hungry for justice.
            You believe rape and genocide are absolutely WRONG. Not just the opinions of silly humans.

            You believe in God. As we all do. 🙂

          22. No I am an atheist.Now, I am almost finished listening to my music.
            Let’s see one single comment devoid of sarchasm, childish rhetoric and any other nonsense, just a straightforward reply demonstrating your integrity and you show me how you know your god is responsible for your morality and for your truth etc.
            Just one honest comment, Amanda.That’s all I ask.
            You can do it if you try.

          23. You call it childish nonsense.
            Soren Kierkegaard calls it the path to grandiose thoughts…

            The paradox is really the pathos of intellectual life and just as only great souls are exposed to passions it is only the great thinker who is exposed to what I call paradoxes, which are nothing else than grandiose thoughts in embryo. -Soren Kierkegaard

          24. So, the disingenuous hypocrite at the death. Well done. Not once have you failed to disappoint.
            Word of advice; rather stick to comedy. In a few years you might develop a passable routine.
            But I would lay off the podcasts for now.
            Nite, nite…

          31. Morality isn’t a social contract, old man. You know it. Because when people in other parts of the world abide by a different set of treaties and exchanges than we do in the west, you look down your nose at them.

            You know we’re all evolving toward a goal. There is such thing as a “winner” in this game–and the losers are people who are selfish and greedy and lying. The winners are the ones who get closer and closer to Truth and Goodness.

          33. He never said the evolutionary process was unguided, JZ. And I think you know that.

            We’re evolving toward Truth and Goodness, which is why we get upset when other groups of humans write “contracts” that don’t line up with what we KNOW is right and fair.

          34. ”He never said the evolutionary process was unguided”

            LOL! No, he didn’t say that. You’re right.

            Do you think he meant to say that?

            If he did, then perhaps John can explain to us all why, exactly, your god, Yhwh, laid out what you are conceding are immoral laws in the past, and demanded people follow them.

            Seems like an odd thing to do, doesn’t it. To write a lie in stone, but call it the moral benchmark all had to follow so as to win his favour.

            I mean, by what you are suggesting here, Yhwh, your god, sanctioned slavery, genocide, animal sacrifice, murdering gays, blasphemers, adulterers, witches… called it all morally fine… then “guided” (that is the word you like, isn’t it, guided) the evolution of human societies (I presume Christian only) to evolve in such a way to cast aside the very moral laws he, Yhwh, laid out for his followers… who are Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

            That’s some fine fiction.

            Priceless.

            Actually, don’t bother answering for your father.

            I want my last memory of this thread to be this shot of perfect apologetic absurdity.

          35. I don’t know what you think I meant by my comment. But I do know one thing. If anyone is qualified to say what God should or shouldn’t command, it’s JZ!

            He’s truth and goodness in the flesh!

          37. Lol, I know! How many times do I have to say we’re on the same side? If it’s true that Yahweh is as bad as they keep saying, he’s not God!

            But they’re not God either, unfortunately for them. I suspect that’s the real issue here.

          38. I just asked Ark to post his comedy video so I can learn how timing works. The way he talks, I bet he’s got a killer act!

          40. I’m recording the 414 conference. We’ll see if he and JZ get laughs from a live audience.

          42. Morality is based on reciprocity!!!

            HaHaHa HA HAAAAAA!

            Maybe he is a comedian after all.

        2. Hmmm. These insights seem personal and not scientific.

          I’ve learned from my atheist friends to ask for evidence. You have supplied plenty of evidence that you’re ill equipped to discuss philosophy.

          Please post a link to your comedy video so I and my 14,000 readers can see if you are qualified to comment on comedy.

          (It doesn’t have to be long. Two or three minutes should be enough to demonstrate your competency.)

          (Oh…it doesn’t need to have millions of views like mine either…)

          Reply

          1. So are you going for a comedy approach after all and ditching the semi-serious theological approach?
            You never heard of Morcambe and Wise? Are you serious?

  6. From an evolutionary standpoint – aren’t murdered gays simply unfit for survival? JZ, Ark, and the rest of the Kitten Laser Patrol can’t argue against evolution.

    Reply

      1. I don’t. But again – from an EVOLUTIONARY standpoint – aren’t murdered gays simply unfit for survival?

        Reply

      2. I don’t. It’s a simple question posed to you. From an evolutionary standpoint – aren’t murdered gays (or anyone – you fill in the blank) simply unfit for survival? If your answer is NO – then why not?

        Reply

          2. Really? If you are that hard up you should have said.
            Maybe your agent could organise a whip-round at your next Christian comedy gig?
            I’m sure your god could spare a few shekels.

    2. For the love of God, Kevin, don’t answer Ark’s question. 🙂
      Make him defend it from a Naturalist stand point.

      Ark has been given the Theistic standpoint multiple times and shouldn’t be allowed to flip the question back at us any more!

      Reply

  7. Oh dear, I misread your ”hospital run” comment. Très drôle. You should include that ine in your next comedy routine. If the audience has their hearing aids turned up full it will have the front row pissing in their incontinent pants

    Reply

    1. Yes. Congrats!
      You even fixed it so it’s not so ‘misleading’. Murder is much clearer than killing…

      Now that you understand the question you will set yourself to the task of ignoring it and calling me names.

      Reply

      1. Why would I ignore it and call you names?
        I rather enjoy your self-effacing somewhat pompous passive-aggressive, whingy-whiny delivery style.

        And no, it is not right to murder … gay people or anyone else.
        Why? Because it usually leaves such a mess on the carpet.

        Reply

        1. A delightful response from the depths of your scientific/historical doctrine.

          I’m presenting at an apologetics conference in November. This exchange will be included among the other tidbits of atheist wisdom. Your comment will be followed with:

          “…knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”

          Reply

          1. Lovely! I shall cherish the mention, however oblique; a true testimony to your integrity, honesty and clear understanding of evolution, and further evidence why I think Lewis Black’s explanation of why evolution is true is one of the funniest yet truthful comedic deliveries on record.

    2. Hey, Ark!
      I’m so glad you and JZ are being used by God in this thread! You probably don’t see it, but you’re doing a divine job demonstrating for readers how Atheists have to miss the main point and do all the questions-asking (rather than answering any), in order to protect their useless worldview.

      Here’s what happened when Richard Dawkins started answering questions consistently:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRQPGPagOjs

      Yikes! How would you explain to Richard (or “Dick”) what’s wrong with his logic?

      Reply

        1. Ark and I have history. 😉

          And I can’t imagine the reason I’m getting the silent treatment is that all of these big, brainy men are scared of a girl… a HOUSEWIFE from a farm town!

          Reply

          1. Scared of you?!!
            Please… You flatter yourself.
            They don’t even understand what you’re talking about.

      2. I answered the question.

        This was the question, right?

        Is it wrong to murder gay people?

        Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get the stains of a dead person out of a shagged-on pile carpet?

        Reply

        1. What are the odds JZ takes a picture of this quote about washing the blood of gay people out of Ark’s carpet and starts sharing it repeatedly?… Dad, you want to wager?

          The only problem we’re having with our band of Atheist buddies is: we honestly can’t tell whether they’re just pretending to not understand what’s wrong with their belief that social evolution is UNGUIDED and NOT OBJECTIVE (in which case, we will just let them have the final word), or if they need us to summarize the game analogy again.

          If you need another explanation of how your sense of morality is evidence for God, just go ahead and reply to this comment, Ark.
          Say anything.

          Say something about the blood of dead gays again, or whatever.

          Reply

          1. They know they’re full of shit. Pride and arrogance compels them to keep responding. They’re prepping for their role in The Great Divorce.

          4. Aw, I was hoping for more attempted shock humor. :/ (I heard a female comedian “joke” about aborted babies once.) But, your comment will do, I guess.

            YES! Yes, I want to know how you justify saying that people in Saudi Arabia are “less civilized” or “less evolved” or less whatever than we are in the west.

            See, Theists argue that we were built to seek God. So, it makes sense for someone like me to say that countries and villages that still make human sacrifices need to be told the truth about human value. God made all of us with intrinsic value, and the only way all of us will be happy is if we strive to reflect HIM.

            God is the Standard. This “game” (and all of its “rules”) were first set up by Him. As all of humanity has begun making their individual and societal choices, we’ve either come closer to God or drifted further away.

            Those of us in the west who don’t support human trafficking (which is all of us, by the way) are currently in the lead. We’re “winning,” because we’re following the rules…and we have every right to point to the gay-kiillers and say, “You better shape up if you want to be as evolved as we are! We’re much, much closer to perfection than you.”

            You guys shoot yourselves in the foot when you argue that “perfection” and “winning” doesn’t really exist in the first place.
            As Dawkins explains: all of the things we call rules, like don’t rape, are really arbitrary. In another universe, it could have gone a totally different way.

          5. It’s cute the way you explain things to him as if he’s genuinely interested in a discussion.

            Or is he just the ‘prop’ you’re using to explain your position to serious thinkers who may be reading along?

          7. He thinks your ‘shock humour’ was a reference to Lewis Black.

            Then, ad hominem comments directed at you.

            I’m thinking Ananias. Not Paul.

          9. That speaks volumes about the success of my indoctrination efforts when my own daughter hasn’t heard of Lewis Black…

          10. I just looked him up.
            Not that I have to explain this to you, but I mentioned shock humor because I assumed Ark was trying to be sarcastic/funny with his comment about cleaning blood stains out of his carpet.

          12. Aw, I was hoping for more attempted shock humor. :/ (

            You consider Lewis Black is ”shock humour.” ? Seriously?

            See, Theists argue that we were built to seek God.

            This is because you have been raised in a largely science-denying environment.
            This can be corrected quite easily.

            I don’t actually see the point of the rest of this ignorant, little-girl rant.

            If you do not understand why certain cultures behave the way they do then you have little or no understanding of anthropology.
            It certainly casts doubt on any claims you might assert that you have read the bible, and especially the Torah, other than to confirm you own personal, indoctrinated beliefs.

          15. LOL!!!!
            You literally CAN’T write a comment without flipping the question, can you?

            You CAN’T answer anything… you HAVE to be the questioner.

          16. But I did answer your question about Dawkins. In fact there were two questions: Is he a science denier too? I replied,”No”.
            And …
            Did you watch the video. I replied ”Yes.”
            I asked the question as it seemed odd in context.
            What was so hilarious about that?

          19. Well, then the last three back-and-forth comments were just getting right back to where we started: I was asking whether you considered Richard Dawkins a science-denier, because that seems to be your own rebuttal when someone points out a flaw in your perspective.

            So–how would you explain to Ol’ Dick Dawkins that rape is ACTUALLY (not arbitrarily) wrong, if you can’t call him an indoctrinated science denier?

          20. I have no idea why he would say such a thing and please don’t presume that he represents my opinion on the matter at all.Okay?
            Do you adhere to the once-held Christian belief that to kill an Infidel was not murder?

          21. I have to presume that Dawkins represents your opinions. Because you won’t correct me.
            You won’t tell me what you DO believe. And, you pathetically keep trying to grill me about Christianity…

            To be perfectly clear: I’m asking the questions now.

            The problem you’re having is that Dawkins knows his science. So you can’t lump him into a category based on his background and call him names, like you do with me.

            He also has done some more thought on this issue than you apparently have.

            HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO DAWKINS WHY RAPE IS ACTUALLY WRONG–NOT JUST ARBITRARILY WRONG, AS HE CLAIMS?

          22. Well, I am correcting you now.
            You know what I believe, but if there are specifics then ask specific questions without trying to bait and switch.

            I do not have a ”problem” – there you go presuming again and showing your ignorance. You really need to work on your control issues my dear. You’ll be slapping your kids next telling them it is correctional discipline and you have the bible to prove it.

            I agree with much of what Richard Dawkins proposes but not all.
            Rape is an act of violence/ attempt to control and therefore morally reprehensible.

            You are a devout fundamentalist; do you think the former Church mandate to kill infidels could be considered justifiable homicide?

          23. A bunch of words isn’t the same as an answer. I asked WHY is rape actually wrong… and you said because acts of violence and control are wrong.

            So, then the question becomes, “Why are violence and control wrong?”
            That sounds like a rule to me–and Richard Dawkins believes there are no objective rules in the Universe!

            If you believe there ARE rules that all humans should follow, where did they come from?

          24. So, then the question becomes, “Why are violence and control wrong?”

            Because violence/control is generally what happens when normal communication breaks down.
            Like when you say to your kids:”Because I said so, that’s why.”
            You’ve done that, right?

          26. Of course. How else should I have answered it?
            The intellectual level of my answers is only a reflection of the person asking the questions.

            If you want a different answer then ask the question is a more sophisticated intelligent manner.

            Surely what you are really asking is something like this:

            Do you think that Yahweh is responsible for morality?

          27. I’ve already told you exactly where this conversation is going.

            Everybody is religious. Everybody believes in God, regardless of what you want to call him.

            The fact that you can’t be as consistent as Dawkins (and fully accept that right/wrong are just illusions) shows that you KNOW, instinctively, that violence and hatred go against the rules of the universe.

          28. Yes, you do enjoy telling do you not? However, I am not religious at all.
            Do not believe in gods, not yours or anyone else’s.
            Your constant and almost fanatical need to project is the most telling aspect of your indoctrination.

            The fact that you can’t be as consistent as Dawkins (and fully accept that right/wrong are just illusions) shows that you KNOW, instinctively, that violence and hatred go against the rules of the universe.

            Violence and hatred are facts of life and, oddly enough, you will generally find more hatred and violence within certain religious structures. Especially your Judaeo/Christian faith.It is even mandated in your bible and also in your own Christian doctrine.
            Your god, Yahweh, is the perfect example of a violent monster.
            That you genuflect to this god speaks volumes about your entire approach to these topics.

            Maybe when you emerge from daddy’s shadow and you have gained a little more maturity in this regard and your own children begin asking some rather pertinent questions you will realise what a silly fool you have made of yourself.

          29. Oh, brother…
            Again–the only question is, do you not understand? Or do you just prefer launching foam darts at me because it’s more comfortable than confronting the huge, gaping problems with a pure naturalism view?…. (That’s rhetorical. You don’t have to answer.)

            This is what you’re supposed to be answering: if violence and hatred are facts of life, then WHY are you speaking against them, when someone rapes or someone kills a gay person? Why are you so appalled by the god you think I worship? Where did you get the idea that violence is “wrong,” when evolution says that violence just IS?

          30. Prediction: “You aren’t asking sophisticated enough questions to warrant an answer.”

          31. …just another reason Ark is my favorite troll, by far!

            If he keeps it up, he’ll be the golden boy at the 414 Conference and knock JZ out of the top spot. You can’t make this stuff up!

          32. This is what you’re supposed to be answering: if violence and hatred are facts of life, then WHY are you speaking against them,

            Where exactly am I speaking against violence and hatred as facts of life? Please indicate.

            Why are you so appalled by the god you think I worship?

            I don’t ”think you worship” I know, as you have identified yourself as a Christian. Unless of course you were lying?
            Also, in the doctrine you revere your god is depicted as a genocidal monster and you worship him. This strongly suggests you are suffering from some sort of social development abnormality.
            Somewhat akin to revering Hannibal Lechter for example.

            Where did you get the idea that violence is “wrong,” when evolution says that violence just IS?

            Again you are incorrect in your interpretation. Another exmaple of your indoctrination.
            No one is saying that violence just ”IS” and certainly not with capital letters either.
            It is a fact of life and by that I am referring to a by product of evolution.
            Protecting food supplies, territory, mates etc.
            As we evolve one can hope that there will be less and less reason to exhibit such (unwarranted and also wanton ) acts of violence.
            As we move towards an era where religion is no longer a major part of society this will be one step toward ridding ourselves of certain violent doctrine.

            It will be a major part of your life as your entire worldview is based upon violence and continues to be so.

          33. I totally agree that hopefully we will see less violence in the future…

            And I totally agree that worshiping a violent god would be a step backward. I know, instinctively, that goodness has to do with love, joy, peace, patience, and kindness. All of these are traits of God…. so, whenever you find someone worshipping hatred and genocide and rape, you should call them out!

            I’m so glad we’re on the same team, using the same rules, to work toward the same goal now.

          35. If you think we’re going down this “which God” trail again, you’re wrong.

            Remember when I told you that asking “which God” is kind of like asking “which winner?” That goes really well with today’s analogy about life being a game, don’t you think?

            My goal is to seek objective truth. I’ll win the game if/when I follow the rules of goodness which are built into the universe, and slowly move toward goodness myself.

            What do YOU think the point of this game of life is? And what do YOU think the rules are?

          36. Names in this instance are not necessary: you said:

            And I totally agree that worshiping a violent god would be a step backward.

            You are a Christian. Your worldview is founded ( to a large extent) on the bible.
            The god of the bible is Yahweh. He is depicted as a capricious, genocidal monster.
            Ergo… you worship this monster.

          37. It’s like talking to a brick wall, Ark.

            On what grounds do you call ANYBODY or ANYTHING a monster? How do you know what a “good” God would be?

          38. Maybe I don’t? So let’s see if you do, shall we? Simple test.
            Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider global genocide justifiable?

          39. You have got to be kidding me. Lol. You took a long time on that comment, so I thought you might actually answer!

            Fooled me. 🙂

            The new podcast just got posted a few minutes ago. Feel free to give it a listen (there will be more!)

            But I’m done here today.

          49. I’m asking YOU!

            Good grief!

            I have a really hard time believing you aren’t getting this. How is it possible for you to “test” my beliefs about God, when you haven’t explained what measuring stick you’re using?

            What kind of God would be a good one? You didn’t answer. So how can you turn right around and set yourself up as a judge of MY perspective?

          50. Now you are confusing me ( not too difficult, I admit)
            You stated: ”So–yes–genocide is justifiable under SOME circumstances?”
            I am asking what you consider are SOME circumstances?

          51. I know what you’re asking… It’s like you don’t understand the simple sentence, “I’M asking the questions now.” I was asking for clarification over the way you phrased your last half-answer. (And I think you know that.)

            You said genocide isn’t acceptable in ANY circumstance. So I was clarifying if you meant that it may be acceptable in SOME circumstances?

            Just one example will suffice.

          52. Genocide is acceptable when a more evolved society exterminates a lesser evolved society so that the more advanced civilization will thrive.

          53. Oh, sorry. Because you are normally so obtuse I should have actually recognised your bait and switch question.
            So, the answer remains the same:
            No, genocide is not justifiable under any circumstances.
            Do you agree with this standpoint?

          56. Did you see that I answered the question already? (If he cuts and pastes my answer, you don’t get paid. He’s got to think up his own answer…)

          61. No, Ark.

            No.

            No, no, no, no. I will not be answering any of your questions.

            I’m not answering questions.

            No questions will I answer.

            No.

            YOU tell ME why genocide is never acceptable.

          62. Because it really pisses off your god when you disobey him and anything that gives him serious grief just has to be a good thing.
            How’s that?

          67. I’m a professional.
            If one of us doesn’t think this is funny, guess who’s wrong…

          70. Well, yes. He is the best example I can hold up for you. One that you can relate to and croon over thinking about how he liquidated entire societies, including the entire human race at one point … on a whim as well!
            How cool is that?
            And you worship this monster.
            Does it give you a warm, tingly feeling contemplating what your god did?

          71. Wait, wait, wait.

            The God of the Bible is the best example of objective morality you can give? But he’s a genocidal monster?

            So…then were did you get the idea that genocide is NEVER justified?

          75. Yes, you’ve truly never answered from YOUR perspective.

            Every time I ask about right/wrong, good/bad, you want to bring up God.

            So–where do YOU get the idea that genocide is bad?

          79. .JZ’s still making noise about genocide too. I answered his question and he abandoned me. Can you believe it?

          80. So–where do YOU get the idea that genocide is bad?

            Is this one of you dad’s examples of humour?
            If I said the back of a Cornflakes packet would you laugh all the more?

          84. Are you upset because Ark lost you $500?

            What would you have done with the money? Give it to South African missions?

          85. I looked it up. $500 is just over 7195 Rand. (That’s the South African currency.)

            Think of all the “good” we could have done–if any of these jokers were willing to admit that “good” was build into us by a good Source.

          86. Or, you could have sent the money to an ISIS group so they could keep purging South Africa of Christians…

          88. Eliminating Christians has historically been soooo beneficial to the advancement of civilized nations…

            Mankind always thrives under godless regimes. (Don’t ask me for evidence.)

          91. How about this, “Genocide is good when it’s used to wipe out Canaanites.”

          92. He’s saved me $110 so far today.
            I am impressed by his consistency.

            If he answers your question now, you get $200!

          93. By your reasoning, genocide is morally fine, as it is promoted in the bible.

            Or, to use your exact words: “Consistent with a biblical worldview”

            And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34

            And we utterly destroyed them, … utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.Deuteronomy 3:6

            And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2

            And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16

            Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15

            But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

            And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

            So smote all the country … he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

            Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

            So, like slavery and murdering gays, do you also support genocide?

            Yes or No?

            I do hope you’re consistent.

          94. Genocide is acceptable when a more evolved culture exterminates a less evolved culture in order for civilization to progress.

          96. Bible is baloney.
            I threw it out in order have an enlightened conversation with you.

            I said ‘acceptable’ I meant ‘preferable’. Genocide is preferable to allowing a morally inferior culture to exist, impeding the progress of superior culture.

          97. Fine. If that is what you believe.

            Personally, I would say colonisation, education, and the establishment of enlightened institutions, and infrastructure, would be “preferable.”

            But hey, I’m coming from a higher evolved moral point of view than you, aren’t I.

          99. Hey, JZ. I’m busy with Ark right now.

            It has taken me a long time to get him to understand that I’m not interested in your interpretation of the Bible. I’m interested in Truth.

            If the Bible isn’t true, then burn it.

            The problem is, the void of Atheism doesn’t give you an objective way to measure truth…. only group opinions and majority rules.

            You had your chance to answer my questions earlier, but you had nothing to offer. So kindly blow elsewhere for awhile.

          100. Please address the question.

            You have been honest once regarding your support of slavery (and indirectly of killing gays), so how about being honest here, once again.

            Yes or No: Do you support genocide?

            Yes or No…

          101. Hey, did you get the chance to see this video of Richard Dawkins, honestly answering a yes/no question from the Naturalist standpoint?

            Do you believe your value judgement of rape (and genocide and slavery) is as arbitrary as the fact that we have five fingers instead of six? Yes or no.

            Yes or no.

          105. Listen, you poor, aging and irrelevant Naturalist/Humanist or whatever you want to be called: I’m not playing your game anymore.

            You’re a one-trick pony, and I’ve got it memorized. You can repost that “answer” I gave you about slavery in as many forums, as many times as you want. I’m willing to bet you won’t share the comment where I said you can BURN THE BIBLE.

            Everybody here has got your tiny, useless worldview figured out: ridicule the Bible and Fundamentalist Christians–never offer any alternative truths.

            The fact that you’re still “swinging” only drives the nail further in your own coffin.

          106. John Branyan’s daughter:

            Suuports slavery

            Supports murdering gays

            Supports genocide

            Why?

            Because the bible says so.

            Got it. Thanks.

          110. JZ and Ark – you have my utmost admiration for braving the rabbit hole once again. (head shake) You’re made of better stuff than me; perhaps you’re imbibing liquid fortitude? 😉

          2. Ah.
            A ‘misleading’ question.
            My guess is that you, like JZ, will make no attempt to answer it.

            Is this where you start asking me for God’s name again?

          4. Back up the thread a bit.
            If you’ve already forgotten it, have somebody take you to the hospital. I suspect a stroke.

  10. John,

    Reading this blog brought thoughts to my mind of “Lord of the Flies”.

    Rules were an important part of the story, and the fallenness of man a central theme. Though not professing faith himself, Golden has seen the base nature of man, and weaved man’s sinful nature and Biblical themes throughout the book. There was just something inside of him that looked at humanity and saw what depravity we have. Like universal laws written into his heart.

    The whole story (spoiler alert… sort of… but if anyone out there has not read “The Lord of the Flies”… do it. Now… Really!) easily shows what mankind is like without rules from a higher source, and what happens when men try to make laws just based on their own desires. The naval officer at the end, all dressed in white, evokes in the boys — first with Ralph, and then the rest — a realization of what they had done and what they had become. Much like men will feel on that final day, when they stand before God to give an account of their lives. God peels back the barriers and all of our secrets are revealed.

    That is the same kind of revelation that Isaiah had when God showed him a vision of heaven and the heavenly court. His immediate declaration upon being in the presence of the Holy One (even in a vision) was to know how unclean he was. Then the angel cleansed his lips, declared his guilt taken away, and his sin atoned for. Isaiah was a changed man, and answered the call to speak for the Almighty. (Isaiah 6:1-8)

    Rules, (dare I call them God’s Law?) are something we come to love and cherish and wish to live by, once we understand who the Rule Giver is and what He has put the rules there for. Fallen man rebels against the rules he doesn’t like, ignoring them or just rejecting the Rule Giver, or even trying to attribute the rules to another source.

    Man making his own rules for life goes about as well as an NFL player making his own rules for the game. As a result of his self-created rules, the referee or league may penalize him, or even the whole team. He could get ejected from the game. He may pay a fine. Many rules are designed for protection, like the necessity of keeping a helmet on any time he is on the field. And if a player runs across the line of scrimmage, knocks the ball out of the center’s hand, and then runs to the end zone declaring a touchdown for himself, all of this prior to the snap, he will be told that he has not scored any points. He would have actually earned a penalty. If he said that according to his own rules it was okay and legal, that would not change the truth of the game’s established rules. Only the NFL has the ability to change the rules, since it is their league, and their game.

    Not a perfect analogy, but I like how it came out. Even the rules of professional football reflect that we need a higher authority to tell us how to live.

    Dave

    Romans 2:12-15 (ESV) – For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

    Reply

  11. After asking my question twice and being ignored, that’s the point where I start saying, “You must be embarrassed!” Right?
    😉
    (Winky face, for you, Dad.)

    Anyway, add “Should they stop killing gays in Saudi Arabia” to the list of conversation-enders. (Along with, “How would you talk someone off a ledge?”)

    Reply

    1. This is the best ‘the void’ has to offer. Maybe it’s not a wind but a giant sucking sound.

      Remember when we used to think the atheists would make interesting conversationalists because they had a different perspective from ours?

      Whoosh!

      Reply

  12. Watch him not answer this question.

    Should people in other societies stop killing gay people? If yes, why?

    Reply

          2. Right, so you still agree with your answer.

            That’s good to know.

            Morality (the laws of which you speak) arise naturally through evolving societal norms.

            No god required.

            I mean, if we just stuck with the laws prescribed in your religion, we’d still be killing gays, sacrificing animals, and trafficking in human slaves, wouldn’t we.

            Thank Neptune we’re not.

            So, the question was, John: Why are you now inserting some unnecessary supernatural agent into something you have already stated quite clearly is natural and evolving?

          5. No contradiction anywhere in my post, Dolt.

            Let me know when you want to admit that you have no reason to oppose the killing of gays in Saudi Arabia.

            Whoooooooooooooooooooosh!

          7. They have evolved different societal norms than you. Why should they care what you think?

          8. You don’t think we, you and I in our respective countries, are morally superior?

            I do, and we can only help others rise, can’t we? That’s how memes spread, isn’t it, John?

            That’s how they evolve, and societies along with them.

            There is no such thing as an objective moral truth, precisely as you’ve said in black and white.

            But, then again, I’m not too sure about you. Your daughter, after all, supports slavery. She cites the bible as the reason for this, and you, of course, follow the same book.

            Perhaps in your neck of Middle America you’re all less morally advanced as, say, in the northeast or northwest of your fine country?

            Who’s to say?

            If you don’t support slavery, but she does, are you trying to lift her to a higher moral standard, John?

            Are you trying to get her to evolve?

            http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/MS_Slave_zps1tkeqciy.png

          9. Your morality isn’t superior to anyone else’s. No reason to evolve anyone. Slavery, genocide and racism are just societal norms. I don’t understand why you’re being so inconsistent…

            Oh wait. Yes I do….

            Whoooooooooooooooooooosh!

          10. Oh yes it is.

            I am far more morally superior to anyone who, say, supports slavery, the killing of gays, or the torturing of animals.

            I have evolved to a higher standard. It is a standard I will defend and take every opportunity to spread.

            Like you have… as you stated.

            You wrote the words, John, so why do you keep contradicting yourself?

            It’s a little weird.

            http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png

          11. Moral superiority does not exist in your insipid evolutionary explanation. Why should anyone care what you think is reprehensible? We’ve all evolved our own morality.

            Whoooooooooooooooooooosh.
            Keep blowing!

          12. So, you did lie when you said you thought trafficking in human misery was morally reprehensible.

            I see.

            Why lie, John?

            If you can’t be honest with yourself, John, who can you be honest with?

            I certainly don’t agree with her (in fact, I find her position on human trafficking to be perverse and disgraceful), but at least your daughter is honest.

            She supports slavery because your bible supports slavery.

            You?

            You’re just a mess of confusion and lies.

          13. You have no basis for condemning lies either. Honesty is just another evolved societal practice. Nothing right or wrong in dishonesty.

            By all means, keep missing the point. Blow you useless noise! Blow!

          18. Nope.
            The sound of your faux outrage and pseudo-intellectualism. This article perfectly outlined the stupidity of your theory. You’ve offered nothing but wind in response. I’ve told you that already but you apparently have a learning disability.

            Blow, might wind.

          20. Yep. We agreed to that, remember? You took a screenshot and posted it.

            You embarrassed by it?

            Whooooooosh.

          21. So, you support slavery and killing gays.

            These repugnant things are “not morally reprehensible,” I believe your exact words were.

            John, do your friends, family (excluding your daughter, of course), wife, and peers know your position on these matters?

            Are they proud of you for it?

            Are you proud of yourself?

            I, at least, am thankful that the majority of your fellow countrymen have lifted themselves to a higher moral standard.

          22. Another 414 conference coming up in November. You are featured prominently in my presentation!

            Last time I made the presentation, the comments from the attendees were along the lines of, “You made me realize I shouldn’t be afraid if atheists.” It isn’t me, JZ. It’s you. Your deepest thoughts are refuted by children.

            You are an antiquated, useless fossil.

          24. And yes, a HUGE contradiction.

            You’re inserting the supernatural into something you’ve admitted in black and white is perfectly natural, and evolving.

          25. A transcendent, universal truth is necessary for morality to exist.

            You can’t understand this. It’s over your head. Just keep blowing, mighty wind.

          27. Whooooooosh!
            You are a mighty, mighty wind.
            You offer nothing of value!
            But you make a lot of noise.

          28. Was that question too awkward for you?

            Are you trying to lift your daughter to a higher moral standard?

            I hope so.

            To support slavery in 2016 is just insane, isn’t it?

            I mean, it’s morally reprehensible.

            Are you ashamed of her position on slavery?

            I would be.

            But I am interested. If she supports slavery because the bible says so, why then don’t you, John, support it?

            You’re reading the same book, aren’t you?

          29. It’s not morally reprehensible to support slavery. It’s a different path if societal evolution. Same with killing gay people. Nothing to be ashamed of.

          30. It’s not morally reprehensible to support slavery?

            Really?

            It’s not?

            That’s interesting…

            So, let me get this straight: You were simply lying when you said you don’t support slavery.

            You think, like your daughter, that trafficking in human slaves is perfectly fine.

            Okay, that’s also interesting… It’s also consistent with your bible.

            Luckily for us all, including you, our secular societies don’t pay attention to the morally reprehensible instructions in that book of yours.

            Thankfully, we have evolved to higher moral, ethical standards.

      2. JB asked if they should stop killing gays in OTHER societies… ones that aren’t as influenced by Christianity as ours has been.

        So, should they stop killing gays in the middle east, for example?

        Reply

      3. There’s no need to repost JBs answer if you didn’t understand it the first time. Try reading it again until you catch up with the rest of us…

        Religion has influenced the way JBs society has evolved.

        What about OTHER societies, which have evolved differently?

        Should THEY stop killing gays, in countries where torturing homosexuals is “right?”

        Reply

  13. This is an interesting post, John, considering in the last post you admitted morals were the product of evolving social norms, no religion/god required.

    Having admitted the natural origin, and evolving nature, of these methods of living, “laws,” why are you now appealing to some supernatural agent? An agent, no less, you seem to be implying is hiding in nature, disguised within evolution, which makes your claim (a claim of a conscious, all powerful agent named, Yhwh, who, it’s rumoured, has issued his own laws) somewhat absurd in its fatal contradiction.

    Reply

        1. Religion plays a crucial role in evolving societal norms.

          Without religion, you have a board game without rules.

          Reply

    2. KIA, that’s the only thing that needs to be said on this thread. But wait until you read the *msu that will follow from the illusory squad.
      *making shit up

      Reply

      1. Every game needs a home team and an opponent…
        And some games have seemingly useless cheerleaders on the sidelines!

        Guess it depends on whether you want to “assign meaning” to their jumping and yelling, huh?

        Reply

Dive into the discussion...

Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Get my blog in your inbox!

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox:

Your Cart