Keep believing in the Babble. Jesus was never real.

Exactly. When you use phrases like "follow your master" etc. shows that this person has shut out all capablities of rational thought. They are engulfed with emotion. They holy spirit that lives in him is nothing but a sense of belonging. He feels good because he belongs to something bigger than himself. THis is not very conducive to self reliance. And the church is using these puppet strings of control (emotion which leads to submission) and will use and control this person to spread the word of god. It's viral, as Dawkins and others have put it.

WOOO!!!!

Lets hear it for the imaginary slave master in the sky! 

Gimme a S!

Gimme a L!

Gimme an A!

Gimme a V!

Gimme an E!

What does that spell?!?! 

i think its quite lame that you guys post this letter up here and then just bash the person who wrote it. this whole site is supposed to be based on open minded and intelligence right? i read nothing 'intelligent' in that at all. just a picture of a fat ass chic doin the splits. 

Who invited Rondney King?

"Cant we all just get along" is a nice idea. But to suggest that someone who is not willing to debate the claims they make is worth respect, is absurd.

If someone came up to you and said, "I must do what Allah tells me" That wouldnt frighten you? If it doesnt then you have your head in the sand.

People vote and act on their religious beliefs. If there are no watchdogs making sure they dont dogmatize the goverment what do you think people like the e-mail above would do to our goverment and our laws?

I dont care what label you claim of any religion, what this person is doing to themselves is mental slavery and this person wants to spread their mental slavery.

Nobody here is adressing ALL Christians, but merely pointing out that THIS person's mentality is the same personality type that leads Muslims to slam planes into buildings.

Do you really believe that people hear voices in their head? I do, but not a deity. Rather a deep seeded indoctriantion based on a deep seeded disire to have identity. Unfortunatly this phycology once imbeded into people leads them to project themselves on others including via goverment and law.

This person's mind is poisoned. Other people of religious beliefs are not threatened by debate. People like this however must be challenged at every turn to maintain the freedom, not only of atheists, but other religious labels as well. This person would if they could force their "obey" mentalitiy on others. That makes them dangerous.

If you cant at least make the attempt to defend the claims you make you do not diserve respect at all. Blindly following and regurgitating words in a book is complete intelectual cowardice. 

 That guy is not a hard core Christian, whatever that means. I know who the top Christian philosophers, scientist, and apologists are, and they will debate you anytime. Some however, only debate Ph.D's. I'm just an average joe, and I'll debate you on your show anytime. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to show how non-sensical atheism is. Seriously, if you people would take your head out of the closet and start doing some research and investigations on these things, I don't think you would be so antagonistic toward theism. I think that most of the atheists here have never really eve bothered to study our philosophy, science and apologetics. Some of the most skeptical people in history have become christians after researching the data for themselves.

Behe, Dembski, Ross and Thaxton, to name the top dogs. I haven't heard from Ross in months. Behe dropped out, and Dembski hasn't responded in a very long time. So perhaps before making such sweeping statements, it would be wise to remember that everyone can see what you write. As for "shredding me to ribbons", this is simply not the case. I have found that all of them are incredibly dishonest. Ross tended to ignore nearly everything I said (sounds a lot like you)and in the Dover Trial, Behe was trying to convince the jury of Intelligent Design by showing that biologists could not persuasively show how the complex immune system evolved. And he was presented with 9 books by proffesionals and 58 peer reviewed journals on immunology. First he said that they were "unfruitful", and then, when pressed, admitted he had not read them.

So again, I urge you not to make such blanket statements. 

BEST laugh I've had all day.

Well said. Anyone who takes that stuff literally DESERVES to be laughed at. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to believe it because I was indoctrinated and even though it would have pissed me off if someone laughed at me, those beliefs ARE laughable.

I'm just glad my mind is free from that rubbish.

Well, by nature I'm a very skeptical person and I'm still a strong believer in Christianity. Does that make me folly?

 I must say to posters on the forums, if you wish to come as to possess some form of intelligence, you must stop with the pictures of overweight ladies doing splits, and silly folly. And indeed, I see you pick at every fall of what someone says, such as pointing out how many creationists you've "talked" to.

I am and have been in the process of observing many different religions, and non religions alike, part of the cause of me taking the time to reply and become a part of this site.

Much of the "data" in the bible is not to be taken literal; yes, you've probably heard this argument a million times before, but much of the stories in the bible are morals. Yet, their not just a bunch of random stories put together.

Something many people don't realize is that the bible code goes farther than just spacing between letters; something the History Channel forgot to mention when they compared it to Childrens Stories. Even if they are morals stories, they have codes that go into such small details as symmetry, reffering to other verses in the bible, and even assigned meanings to each number that corresponds with the story that it confines within. No computer or human alike could be so accurate as to provide historical accuracy (yes, there indeed is historical accuracy in the bible, according to historians and scholars who have studied the subject much longer than any of us most likely) and a bible code so complex. So debunk the bible code, and then we can proceed with further ado.

And yet, to turn around and call these well educated scholars of well means foolish would be folly!

 Albert Einstein even pointed to a more divine power in the Universe; he himself was not generally religious in the time of his scientific exploration, but could not comprehend the universe without a "greater power". Are you calling well documented and educated scholars, and one of the greatest minds in the 20th century foolish?

And just to mention, according to "Deludedgod"'s picture of the WTC's before they were attacked... it wasn't a religious right with box cutters that brang those two towers down, but that's another argument of it's own (and that one is not a theory!)

Wow, Mr. Sapient, you sure are a hypocrite.

Let me ask you a question. Why haven't you guys debated people like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, James White, Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, or  J.P. Moreland?  Sorry, but Kirk Cameron is simply not the best that  the other side has to offer, and debating him does nothing for your cause.  I know Kelly debated Matt Slick from CARM.ORG, but she simply got spanked  and was outmatched. So much so, actually, that even a FULL YEAR LATER you, Mr. Sapient, have not accepted Matt Slick's personal challenge to debate you. So sad...

I understand if you don't want to debate those guys. I guess the reason would be that you know that you can't handle that kind of scholarship and apologetics. Way to swing at the low hanging fruit guys!

Oh, and just to let you know, debating the RRS would also be considered "swinging at the low hanging fruit" as well. Do you know how I know this? Because the argumentation that you guys think is great would never be used by an intelligent atheist in a formal debate.

Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

I can't help but see a connection between all of Romans 1 and our society today.

Edit: Just to let you know, James White also has a radio show and he would be more than happy to speak to you if you call him. Just go to aomin.org.

 People sure dig up some old ass threads.

I'm not their leader.  The "hypocrite" obection wasn't answered in this thread because virtually the same argument has been answered many times before.  At this point answering it again might actually give it a shred of validity of which it has none. 

Here's the Matt Slick debacle for you in the real world, not la la land as presented in the objection.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Sapient, if you honestly think that you managed to "refute" Matt Slick in that sad attempt at a debate/discussion that you linked me to, than you really should rethink your methods. And for being called the "Rational Reponse Squad," you sure do hold some very irrational views and ways of debate. I find it very sad that you engage religious people, especially Christians, in this fasion.

And just an FYI for anyone intersted, Mr. Sapient has not, I repeat, has not responded to Matt Slick's challenge. The radio show he linked me to happened before Kelly was on Matt's show and before Matt sent out a public challenge to debate Mr. Sapient. So don't think that you have managed to dodge this.

I promise you that if you were to try and have a public debate with Matt Slick (or any other apologist like James White, William Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, etc) you would get crushed. Your innability to identify logical errors in your own arguments is enough to keep you from winning any formal, time debate.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/rrsquad.htm

There. Read Matt's side of the story. When you are done, go down to the very bottom and see his two challenges to your "Rational" Response Squad. I doubt you will answer any of these, as most atheists don't.

Matt's challenge to me is akin to Al Gore challenging George Bush to a re-debate and calling George Bush a "dodger" if he doesn't accept.  Matt's done, and I was done with him the day I hung the phone up on him.  All that's left now is the comedy of watching him re-challenge me and watching people like you cry for a future debate instead of accepting his ass was handed to him.  Maybe if you could accept reality in the file I alerted you to it would be worth doing it again, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

I'm damn glad I'm not relying on any promises from you.

I did, that's why the file was made available free.  So people could make up their own mind.  

Him and Al Gore sitting in a tree.

TAD,

Why appeal to Slick and White? Afraid you can't handle yourself here?

This is just a fancier version of "My dad can beat up your dad".

Fight your own fights, You can start with naming the  "circular arguments and begging the quesiton and even changing the subject very often" that you accuse the RRS of doing in the debate. There were even long periods where RRS mikes were closed so Slick could make his points and all he did with that opportunity was whine about being interrupted.

Again, these are some of the saddest excuses I have ever heard. Do you really think that you are on a higher intelligence level than James White? Prove it!

Here, if you want to hear Matt's recent challenge, go to this link and download his radio show.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/carmorgpodcasting/~5/499941317/rec123108.mp3

Listen from 45:35 - 52:00.

I must say, for being such "rational" atheists, this kind of childlike and pathetic excuse is rather sad. You think you are the top notch atheists? Than prove it! But you haven't, do you know why? Because you just said "It's been covered on this site before..." Having a monologue about someone with your idiot atheist friends isn't dealing with an issue. And that is all you guys have here. You don't have any meaningful discussion with people.

And yes, people think that your site is a joke along with your entire organization. Even atheists think this! I mean, if atheist philosopher Michael Ruse was embarrased to be an atheist because of The God Delusion, than I doubt that any intelligent atheist would think that you guys are any better.

I'll say it again, having a monologue, which is obviously all you are interested in, is not dealing with the issue. Period. If you think so, than that further shows your irrationality and, quite frankly, your childish debating methods and "logic."

I want to add one more thing, and I hope you actually read my post, Mr. Sapient. The reasons that you think that you will get nowhere with White is as follows. One, you are using that as an excuse to not get your "rational" butt handed to you.

Two, you don't accept correction! This is a huge one. I heard your "debate" (which it wasn't, it was a gangbang and hardly worth the title of "dealing with Matt Slick" ) against Mr. Slick and one of your own members would make an assertion that is completely false, but then continue the argument based on a wrong initial premise. Matt pointed this out and Mr. Rook said, "Yea, well, OK whatever." and continued his argument. Matt then said, "Wait, you can't start an argument on a false premise and expect it to work for you." You know what you guys did? You laughed at it! Why? Because for some odd reason, you think that is illogical. So even though Dr. White could destroy your arguments that are based on antient text and manuscript criticism, you would not accept the correction anyway, change the subject, and declare yourself the winner.

Yes, it's because James White is a genius and Matt Slick would whip my butt.  Feel better now?

For what it's worth this thread was originally posted because an atheist asked us for help, and this was the start of what I did for him.  I don't remember all the details 2 years later but the jist was that the WRHS revolution was in some manner making atheist students feel bad about themselves, affecting their ability to learn in a secular environment, and utilizing school time in such a way that violated the school code of conduct.  Excessive prayer in class was one of the items the student was complaining about.  As you can see in my initial e-mail I offered the group the ability to ask us questions, discuss our beliefs, and I had questions to return.  I didn't bash, nor did I bash them in the actual forum, I simply posted the communication.  

You however have chosen to beat a dead horse after getting the only answers needed and bash extensively (what's that about hypocrisy?).  And you're welcome to continue... the floor is yours.  I have an idea, make a disparaging comment about my desire to accept a challenge from Matt Slick, you haven't talked about that yet.

I see - you didn't listen to the show and are just taking Slick's word for it. I also see that you haven't bothered to take on the rest of my post. I also notice that you disregard how Slick asked Kelly (the philosophy person on the show) biology questions more suited for Yellow #5. I wonder what questions he's ask Brian. who do you think would be more suitable to answer them? Dawkins? Dennett?

Don't worry - theists like you don't want to think rationally. The Bible keeps you from having to use your brain.

The Atheist Delusion,
 

From one theist to another: stop being an ass.

-adamryan