Thursday, July 26, 2007

Incoherent ramblings

The following italicized comments are responses from Christians about Christopher Hitchens book "god is not great, how religion poisons everything." These were taken from the comment section at amazon dot com. They are very amusing! Enjoy!

couldn't even capitalized the "g" in God. You think by writing this garbage he's going to change thousands of years of religion. Sounds full of himself to me! Have fun in Hell!

This book is a sign of the times we're living in: THE LAST DAYS…………..Wisdom is seeing life and people and circumstances from God's perspective. This book sees everything from man's perspective. It glorifies man and his abilities instead of glorifying man's creative and HIS abilities. God exists and He reward those who diligently SEEK HIM! I'm giving this book 1 star, because it DOES show us that God's prophetic calendar is indeed "ticking away!"

How can people believe this guy. He's an unhappy, ANGRY, man, just like most athiests are. I might could listen to his arguments if they weren't all tainted with such contempt and anger. Be happy, then write the book!
I believe in God. Hitchins doesn't. That's fine with me. Sooner or later, we're all going to KNOW.

If folks would read the Bible then they'd see that God warns that Satan will also be in our temples. I feel sorry for those who can not accept the fact that God is real. It is a huge ego that leads so many in today's world to try to explain God away rather then accept Him. He does truly exist and those who are led to explain Him away will one day regret that effort. So be it.

God is found by those who want to find him. If you don't know whether or not God exists I dare you to sincerely pray this prayer: "God if you are real reveal yourself to me. If you do I will follow you". If you will not do that then God will leave you to yourself. I can only tell you that you will have made a very bad choice.

I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they can find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief"

Note: ALL PAGANS WILL FIND THIS REVIEW UN-HELPFUL - I predict that less than 1 in 20 will consider themselves to be believers in the one and only TRUE God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As the Bible states: ... a remnant shall be saved (Romans 9:27) !!! PRAISE THE LORD !!!!!


May GOD have mercy on you for your wrong and evil thoughts, you will see one day when you are judged by GOD, please change!

How in the world can anyone think God is not great??? It is true, many get hung up on religion, but how can you look around this world and not see HIM? He created EVERYTHING! This man is a total wacko. I am truly offended by even the title of this book. PLEASE DO NOT READ OR BUY IT!!

I can't believe people get away with writing stuff like this in this country. Maybe in the USSR, but not America. I thought people got blacklisted for having opinions such as this. I guess I was wrong, our country needs a new Senator McCarthy. This guy promotes atheism, a dead give away that shows without a shadow of a doubt that he is a communist. Communists should not be allowed to have the same rights as people. This man should be blacklisted, and taken to prison, and possibly deported to Cuba or North Korea. It appears that even though the Soviet Union collapsed, they won the Cold War after all.

God is not the Problem, or the belief in him. The problem is people. This book is written by an angry person who knows nothing.

Don't waste your time with this book. People like Hitchens espouse that there is no God but have absolutely no grounds to prove it. The reason that they don't believe is because they don't want to believe so they can disengage their conscience from behavior. There is absolute truth b/c if there wasn't, truth could not be truth.

Athiests think they are the most "open minded" of men, and that those who have any faith are old fashioned and close minded. They fail to see that they are the close minded ones, not accepting what the overwhelming majority of humans have believed for the many thousand years they have been around. Athiests go against human nature. They are like anorexics, who refuse to take part in what would keep them alive.

I has not gone unnoticed that Mr Hitchens is called by the name of God, and
his title for this newest "cleverness" is rightly missing a capital G. The Spirit will eventually catch him unawares. When that happens, I will gladly read a future (humbly) written volume by him. The new enlightenment hasn't reached him yet, he's still working off the old one.

How ironic that this man's name means "bearer if Christ!" But it is appropriate. I believe that the end result of his attempts to discredit Christianity will be that more people will become Christians. Reading through the book, you get the impression that he hasn't the faintest idea what Christianity is. It would be like me writing a detailed account of a trip to Mars. He's just completely out of his element.

Keep slamming down that single malt ol' man. These alcohol inspired rantings must make sense to you at least. This book is sure to find its way to Wal-Mart's dollar bin.

On proof and doubt (aka The "God" debate)

A quick update on the timeline of this debate.

1. I tell Frank Walton that I could beat him at a debate so he challenges me

2. Frank is not capable of setting up a moderated forum for the debate and forfeits.

3. So that the effort is not wasted I post my opening statement for the debate as a blog and offer to answer any questions.

4. A user named Bnonn, from New Zealand offers to pick up where Frank left off. I accept and his rebuttal is posted on his blog.

5. I respond to Bnonn’s post

6. Bnonn responds back.

Below the conversation is continued. I have tried my best to shorten this up a bit. My voice is in bold print. Enjoy!

First and foremost I would like to thank you for your last reply. It has much less in the way of name calling and ad hominem attacks. I feel that we are better situated to move down the road towards an intelligent discourse now. I also want to thank you as I feel that this is the first time that I have actually debated a topic with someone in this online forum who has shown some degree of intelligence. It is rather refreshing. I am going to try my best to shorten this response a bit but given the amount of information that we seem to be dealing with here I think that it may be a challenge.

Your first point is as follows

then what of the over 100 million people killed by secularist regimes and ideologies in just the last century……more people in the 20th century were killed by secularist regimes, led by secularist intellectuals in the name of secularist ideologies, than in all the religious persecutions in Western history.

Because I have already dealt with this issues at length in my post entitled Now introducing “Ms. Information!” I will not go into it in great detail again here. I will say that there is a vast difference between the motivations of the evil secularist groups and the Christian groups that carry out these atrocities. Most Christian atrocities in our history have been carried out in the name of Christianity. The idea has been to further their religion by any means necessary. While there are many secularist regimes that have carried out evil atrocities they generally do not do so in the name of furthering any ideology other than their own personal quest for power. With that being said claiming that these secularist committed such atrocities because of atheism is similar to saying that they all did so because they wore hats.

Many times in these “secularist” led evil moments in history, religions tend to lend a hand regardless. This is often overlooked for obvious reasons. Here is a quote from the above mentioned link that may shed some light on what I am trying to say.

“Stalin of course was a known atheist but this particular instance was not a religious issue for him. It was a political one. What comes as more interesting though is that Stalin was working in tandem with the Jesuit’s also known as the” soldiers of Christ” who were actually the driving force behind convincing Stalin to use his army to “Liquidate their rival religion” of the Lutheran order!”

What does this prove about the truth of any ideology, religious or not?

Well if you are willing to concede that at least some of these atrocities were carried out in the name of religion then you would also have to concede that it said something about its ideologies. If Christianity's teachings were clear that violence and killing were wrong then these atrocities could in no way be attributed to the faith. The fact is that the Bible in many instances condones similar acts of violence as a means to further god’s word.

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:16-18

In order to get from the proposition The Bible approves wars and atrocities to the proposition The Bible is therefore false, some kind of second premise is required.

Well I suppose that my second premise would have to be that if the god of the Bible is real and did allow these atrocities then he is not worthy of being served. This would directly contradict the Biblical claim that god is worthy of being served. If the Bible is the perfect, divine, inspired word of god, then it cannot contain even one contradiction.

However: if we accepted an empirical standard for the sake of argument, you nonetheless still failed to engage with what empirical evidence there is

Once again in regards to the particular topic that you are referring to, I did provide empirical evidence. I restated that evidence in my last post. If you consider that evidence invalid then that is one thing, but if you are simply ignoring it then we are not on track to have a constructive conversation.

In fairness, the thrust of my comment was, as per above, that you were being inconsistent.

If that is what you meant then this is actually the fallacy that you committed.

Angels, I never suggested that you had assumed the premise that God does not exist.

No? Then please explain the following statement taken from your initial response.

“Firstly, it amazes me that you would enter into a debate on the existence of God, but start it by assuming your own conclusion. The very question at hand is as to whether there is any proof for the existence of God! Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?”

Or this one.

“If you wish to assert that your claim, that God does not exist, is reasonable, and that the Christian's claim is unreasonable, then you must actually demonstrate this instead of just assuming it without proof.”

Moving on

You are being asked to disprove the existence of something that has absolutely no proof for its existence in the first place." I objected to this statement on the basis that we have not established that no such proof exists—and that, by assuming this, you have effectively closed your mind to the affirmative position, making the debate moot (excuse the pun). As I will show, there is a positive abundance of proof for the existence of God.

Yet these proofs have still not been presented.

Could I ask that you clarify your position regarding what burden of proof the atheist carries, and why?

I suppose that an atheist would have as difficult of a time answering this questions as a Christian would. Let me remind you though that I am not an atheist. (I am agnostic) Again, I do not feel that there is proof to support either side. If there was, then it would be unlikely that there would even be an existing debate on the topic.

With that being said, the atheist is not the one making a positive claim. This is the beauty of the scientific method, (which I fully endorse) if a positive claim is made, then there must be evidence to back it up. I do not want to speak for atheist (perhaps my wife would be better suited to answer this question as she is an atheist) but I believe that it is as absurd to require that they have to prove whether god is real or not. There is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god as there is for Isis, Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Allah, and batman. Yet we are not asking atheist to prove all of those things to be untrue. If you seriously wanted someone to take an argument for the existence of god seriously then you would need to start in the same way as you would with any other positive argument. That is by presenting evidence.

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense, either within your own worldview, or within mine. In my worldview, I contend that God upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3) and that in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Therefore, whenever someone is healed, whether by an apparently normal means or not, God is working.

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that even if someone was healed through the work of a doctor or through man made medicine, that it would be considered to be a miracle because it is ordained by god. This assertion assumes, without proof, that god is real. Furthermore if I were to accept this as true in addition to the firsthand account of Biblical authors we would still be left with a dilemma. Why did a steadfast and never changing god all of the sudden cease to bless us with extraordinary healings that don’t involve the interference of man? Why can’t we test someone with cancer to make sure their disease is real and then send them to a faith healer and test them again to see that they are healed? Why does god not want us to have evidence of his extraordinary works?

Then, within your own worldview, if a healing occurred which appeared to be exceptional in some way—that is, if there was no explanation for it according to our current understanding of science—you would surely not recognize it as a miracle per se.

Un-true, the very definition of a miracle would force us to accept it as such if it were not scientifically verifiable.

You would deny that it necessarily proves anything supernatural

Actually it would completely change my view. Do you have evidence to present?

Since your worldview assumes from the outset that everything operates according to mechanical, natural laws, with no God involved (correct me if I am wrong), you have a priori precluded the possibility of miracles, and so anything which the Christian might claim as a miracle would be dismissed as a phenomenon which merely requires further study.

You are wrong. My world view allows for the possibility that there could be a god, and so things could be explained in such a manner as to be attributed solely to him. I have not precluded the possibility of miracles, but rather have asked for you to show me an example of a miracle so that I can examine it for myself. It would seem that this whole course of discussion has simply been a way for you to avoid producing proof by substituting what you believe I will accept as a "plausible explanation."

In textual criticism, it is normal to treat an historical record as accurate until evidence arises which suggests otherwise…………………..Many archaeologists, for example, were skeptical of the existence of cities like Bethel and Dan, even considering them to be myths, until these places were discovered and excavated.

While I think that it would be agreeable that many of the cities mentioned in the Bible have been verified to be real cities what was in protest was lack of evidence for many of the events that the Bible says to have happened. It is reasonable to think that if someone created a story, that they could tell it as if it happened in a city they lived in or knew of. For instance Italy is written about extensively in Dan Brown’s “The Davinci Code.” We could certainly use his book as proof that the city existed but we would not suddenly consider his story to be true just because he got a few facts about the local area correct.

But is it even likely that a proud dynasty, whose ruler was supposed to be a god, would meticulously record a crushing defeat such as that under discussion? It is perhaps more probable that the next Pharaoh would declare the whole event be stricken from history.

Even so, there would be an immense amount of archeological evidence to back up at least some of the claims. For the amount of time that the Jewish people were in captivity on Egyptian soil you would expect remnants of their culture to be left behind. Do you mean to tell me that in addition to striking the defeat from the records that Pharaoh went around and made sure that every remaining artifact on Egyptian soil and in the dessert were completely destroyed? Maybe you mean to say that god took care of that evidence.

How about evidence of an entire Egyptian army swallowed up into the Red Sea. How was that cleaned up? Christians claim the Holy Bible to be the perfect inerrant word of god. If it is found to have one mistake or contradiction (which it has many of) then it can no longer claim to be as such. The Bible may be a mediocre and biased historical record at best but as the “word of god” it fails miserably.

As regards the accuracy of the New Testament, and its canon, you evidence similar prejudice. The original manuscripts of the New Testament were completed probably no later than 100 AD (not around 233 AD as you claim)

I submitted evidence for my date, please submit evidence for yours.

Furthermore, oral tradition need not be prone to error in the way we tend to assume. A little research into cultures in which oral tradition is maintained will reveal that it is remarkably accurate across vast periods of time—certainly one generation would not be a problem

This cannot be a serious claim. Tell me one other scenario where oral records are considered to be accurate. Even today the incredible inaccuracy of oral records can be shown to have little or no value. People tend to expand and elaborate on stories as they get passed. Could you imagine going to court for a speeding ticket and someone showing up to testify against you that was a friend of a friend of a friend of the police officer who issued the ticket. Would you consider it fair? Well the court wouldn’t. The court would demand the officer’s eyewitness account of the events. Is it too much to ask that I demand the same thing?

The gospels were all written by eye-witnesses, and barring an existing prejudice there is simply no reason to doubt them as historical records

This has already been said better than I can say it.

“Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.……….. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."Cite

I would ask that you not cite examples taken from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible, since it does not list discrepancies which are born out of genuine textual criticism, but transparently seeks to compile every possible example of passages which an ignorant and credulous reader might take, at face value, to be in variance (therefore violating the "benefit of the doubt" principle I mentioned before).

If we cannot take the scriptures at face value then how are we supposed to take them? Very well then, I will select two contradictions for you to explain to me.

Just to be fair let’s start with some easy ones.

1. Is God all powerful?


Is anything too hard for the LORD? Genesis 18:14
Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do everything Job 42:1-2
Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee. Jeremiah 32:17
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for the Lord? Jeremiah 32:27
With God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27
The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Luke 18:27

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19
And he could there do no mighty work. Mark 6:5
It was impossible for God to lie. Hebrews 6:18

2. Is the Devil free to roam and tempt us?


For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Peter 2:4
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day Jude 6

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8

I'm not interested in a dialog regarding the actual science of the Flood, per se—rather, I am going to simply use the science as a means to interact with the philosophy; the ideas and assumptions which must be true for the science itself to be cogent……………….This entire calculation is predicated upon the assumption that Mount Everest existed in its present form when the Flood began. This assumption, however, is clearly at variance with the biblical worldview, since most Christian scientists believe that the large proportion of tectonic activity which the earth has experienced occurred during, and possibly shortly after, the Flood itself. The objection assumes a "stable state" earth onto which the Flood abruptly poured, ignoring that the Bible teaches that the earth is only perhaps 7-8,000 years old.

O.k. then, let’s assume that the earth is only 7-8000 years old. In that amount of time what do you think is the largest possible growth that a mountain could have risen up to. Let’s say that Mt Everest was half the size it is now back in 7000 B.C. or whenever you want to assume that the great flood happened. If this was the case then we still need approximately 180 inches of rain per hour to fall from the sky for 40 days straight in order for it to cover the whole earth with water. Could you imagine this intense downpour and the damage it would have even on a boat. The water pressure alone would tear a wooden boat apart. This is not even taking into account the potential for water evaporation.

“The Flood could not have covered the whole world, it could not have laid down every sedimentary rock bed, and Noah could not have rescued every living species. The rocks put the lie to all that.”Cite

In other words, the history of science is all about being wrong. The principle of falsafiability itself is an open admission that a theory cannot be scientific unless it can be proved wrong.

Actually when something can be “proven” wrong it is no longer considered to be scientific. In order for something to be scientific it must be repeatedly testable and proven consistent over many trials.

what benefit do you see to the testing and re-testing in science, which you defend? You have implied that it is important, and that it makes science superior, but you have not stated why. What is the purpose of repeating an experiment, and why do you believe it is valuable?

This is not a serious question is it? If we can prove that something happens again and again over multiple trials then we can make strong assumptions about the possibility that it will continue to happen under those same circumstances.

For example, let’s say I have an electrical current flowing to a light bulb connected to a switch. When I turn on the switch the light comes on. I try again, and it comes on again. I have now tested the theory that the light will come on and can assume that it will continue to do so unless one of the variables changes.

Let’s look at the same experiment through the eyes of a divine creator. “God has commanded that the light bulb turns on when I flick the switch. It comes on because god has willed it so. If it ceases to come on then it is because god has ordained it not to. Allowing for multiple trials grants us the knowledge to know and manipulate our environment.

Attributing causes to a creator that may or may not be there leaves us rather helpless when things go wrong because we assume that they were meant to be. If this assumption is made then we are likely to sit complacently and let life wash over us like a wave. This type of mentality is very dangerous.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A response to a response

Bnonn posted a refutation of my opening statement for the debate about the existence of god. My response to him is in the bold print

you then proceed to introduce your topic by making an introspective and obviously passive-aggressive commentary regarding the history and motivation of religion, without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims-.

First and foremost please keep in mind that the original rules for my opening were to keep it under 1500 words. I would have loved to go into more detail. With that being said you claim that I did not provide any empirical evidence for any of my claims regarding history and the motivation of religion. I think that it is obvious that you did not click on the links that I provided in the document itself.

The first link under “horrible actions” list the many victims of the Christian faith. It covers the persecution of pagans including the destruction of pagan temples and the death of anyone worshipping any other god’s than the Christian one. It moves on to the Crusades to which the timeline and death toll are horrifying. Then it moves on to the murders of “heretics” and “witches.” Then it starts into the long history of religious wars and Christianities involvement in the persecution of the Jewish people as well as native peoples. Then there are some stories regarding the Nazi extermination camps specifically for children that were run by Catholic priest. There is even a video that was posted on and on Frank Walton’s page that asked atheist why Christians should even let atheist live. The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior.

Your little dissertation sounds rather like a conspiracy theory, starting with an obvious falsehood ("the arguments for God are typically from emotion and introspection"), moving directly into implicit and unjustified premises (that arguments for God should be empirical in nature; and that empirical arguments are sound), and then proceeding on to provide a speculative, unsubstantiated, and frankly bizarre explanation of the topic at hand.

You chastise me here for saying that evidence for god should be empirical and that empirical evidence is sound. You say that this premise is unjustified. In the previous quote you chastise me for not citing any empirical evidence. You do realize that you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to say that empirical arguments are not sound then you cannot attack me for not having one.

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

You seem to have a working knowledge of logical fallacies. The particular one you have used here is called Poisoning the well

Firstly, it amazes me that you would enter into a debate on the existence of God, but start it by assuming your own conclusion. The very question at hand is as to whether there is any proof for the existence of God! Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

There is nothing in any statements that I have made that assume that god does not exist. If nothing else I think I have been pretty clear about my position. My position is that no one can know. There are more than two answers to “does god exist.” Mine is that there is no way to know and that I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that he does. I am not worried about being exposed as a fool either. This would be the best thing that could happen. If I were to assume that god wasn’t real and the an opponent were to offer me proof of his existence then I would accept god and his teachings, thus being “saved” and I would go to heaven. If god is real then I hope someone can prove me to be a fool. Your third sentence contains a fallacy called the personal attack

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence? To offer an empirical analogy, there is no proof that light has mass; yet there is plenty of proof that it does not.

Yes, that was the point of my whole article. No proof either way. I never claimed that there were proofs for the non-existence of god either. I claimed that there was no method of knowing for sure on either side.

Accepting this for now (though it is not a law of logic, but rather a convention of debate), how do you know that it is the Christian who is making the fantastic or outrageous claim, and not yourself? It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth.

Here you are committing the false dilemma fallacy. You are saying that for your viewpoint to be true all you have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview. I did say that the Christian claim is fantastic and outrageous but I never claimed that the atheistic view was not. To put those words in my mouth makes you guilty of the strawman fallacy. This is where you ignore my position and substitute a misrepresented position for me. It is usually a very effective fallacy because people tend to take you at your word and not actually research the source materials for themselves.

If you wish to assert that your claim, that God does not exist, is reasonable, and that the Christian's claim is unreasonable, then you must actually demonstrate this instead of just assuming it without proof. Since you have already accepted a formal debate on the topic, you have implicitly acknowledged in so doing that both positions require equal scrutiny.

Again, I never asserted that god does not exist. In formal debate the burden of proof is often placed on one side or the other. In this case we are saying that it relies on the side of the ones making the outrageous claims. Some outrageous claims that Christians make are as follows

1. God will heal the sick

2. God can cure cancer

3. God will take care of you in your time of need

4. God answers prayer

5. God can raise people from the dead

Yet despite these claims we have absolutely no evidence that god has accomplished any of these objectives. With the introduction of the scientific method it appears that these miraculous occurrences have somewhat become a thing of the past. If I am wrong, then I am excited to hear you empirical evidence where any of the above 5 assertions have been witnessed in a scientifically verifiable environment.

The various assertions you've made so far seem basically to undermine the entire formal debate process. This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

Two whole sentences of the personal attack fallacy

What is circular about citing historical records in support of a premise? Is it circular reasoning to cite Plato's Apology in support of the existence of Socrates? Certainly, our single extant copy of that work, separated in origin from the events it describes by over half a century, is far less reliable than the hundreds of accurate biblical records we have, which are further corroborated by secular records and archeology. You are assuming the consequent again; your reasoning essentially is: God does not exist; the Bible attests to God's existence; therefore the Bible is not an accurate record.

Strawman again? I never asserted that god does not exist. I do not state that the Bible is not a valid historical record because I assume that god doesn’t exist. I state that it is not a valid historical record because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Here are a few examples for you.

1. We have an extensive knowledge of Egyptian history yet there is no archeological or documented evidence of Jewish slaves, the seven plagues, an entire Egyptian army that was swallowed up by the Red Sea or thousands of slaves wandering in the dessert for 40 years. You would think that we would be able to find something to support the claims made in the book of Exodus. Cite

2. The stories of the life of Jesus were passed on for a long time through an oral tradition. There was not a huge desire to write them down since they believed that the end of the world was coming soon. There were many different accounts of the life of Jesus and a massive game of “telephone” began. While the original authors of the gospels cannot be verified what can be verified is that they were written between 30-200 years after the death of Jesus. Some of the gospels disagree with each other on various events and offer us many contradictions to attempt to resolve. The books that would eventually become the New Testament were decided by a popular vote of bishops at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. In this vote many books were left out that the church felt would be confusing including a testament supposedly written by the prostitute Mary Magdalene and a testament of Peter that claimed that non-believers that died and went to hell would have a second chance to repent and reap the rewards of heaven.

Typically when the creation of a document is flawed and the data in the document contradicts itself we tend to think that the document does not have any value.

But again, this is the very question at hand, and if the Bible is an accurate record, then it does constitute empirical evidence for God's existence.

So then you agree that if the Bible is a contradictory and flawed document then it does not constitute empirical evidence for god’s existence right?

The precise nature of that evidence should probably be debated, but to simply dismiss it reveals a strong prejudicial assumption which is completely contrary to the intent of the debate. If you are going to refuse the Bible as an empirical proof, then you must explain why. Since its accuracy can be established extremely strongly, I would suggest that you will have to appeal to historical skepticism, which makes any historical proof impossible—but that could have unfortunate consequences for your position as well, as I will mention below.

Well I have not dismissed it. Here is an entire list of Biblical contradictions for you to browse through.

Firstly, let us be done with the "what Christians are trying to present to us" line, and stick carefully to what the Bible presents about God.

But wait, aren't you a Christian trying to present to me what the Bible says about god? Click the above link and explain the countless inconsistencies then.

Many people claim to be Christians but have utterly no idea who God is. So, secondly, can you please explain the inconsistency you perceive between God's actions toward man, recorded in Scripture, and God's character, also recorded in Scripture? God is certainly loving and forgiving, but he is also holy and righteous, just and jealous, and wrathful toward sin. Your argument appears to hinge upon a misrepresentation (or at least a misunderstanding) of God's character. A correct understanding of both theology proper, and anthropology, will reveal no inconsistency whatsoever.

This is a claim without proof. You are assuming it to be true. This is commonly referred to as the composition fallacy.

Rather than engage in an extensive detour so as to educate you to the point where you are competent to engage in a debate which you have already accepted, I would direct you toward a series I have written titled 'On Strawmen', which should adequately correct your misconceptions about biblical teaching.

Questioning my competence in place of attacking my arguments is again, the personal attack fallacy.

This is a large area of study, and one in which you are apparently ignorant if you are seeking to use it in defense of the secular position

Personal attack again.

The existence of flood myths in various cultures constitutes a compelling proof for the actual occurrence of the flood described in Genesis. You are presupposing that all these myths are simply invented, which is clearly a far more extraordinary claim than to suppose they all have a common basis in fact.

There are floods all over the world and for people that are not aware of the size of the world; it is understandable how they would think that if their little portion of the globe flooded then it must be the entire world flooding. The idea of a global flood is not only unachievable through any sort of natural method but also is archeologically falsifiable.

“Mount Everest is the highest mountain "under the whole heaven." It reaches an altitude of 29,028 feet, which would be a height of 348,336 inches. For enough rain to fall in a period of 40 days to reach the peak of this mountain, the cloud formations would have to drop 8,708 inches of rain per day uniformly over all the earth. This would amount to 363 inches per hour or six inches per minute. Can any reasonable person believe that it once rained continuously for 40 days and nights at an average rate of six inches per minute? A rainfall of six inches in one day is a veritable downpour. What would six inches per minute sustained for 57,600 continuous minutes be like?” Cite

If you want to keep going with this we can discuss the improbability of the ark being able to house two of every animal and the possibility to Noah being able to redistribute all of the animals to their appropriate regions after the flood.

You seem to think that Christians are always of subpar intelligence. Yet, I have shown so far that your opening statement is replete with logical fallacies, errors, and unjustified assertions, and virtually devoid of any genuine logical reasoning whatsoever.

Strawman again! I never said that Christians were of subpar intelligence. I said that religion gives people with subpar intelligence the motivation to keep living, working and producing for their societies. How did you interpret this to mean that Christians all have subpar intelligence? Are all religious people Christians? I would ask that you read through my document again without bias so that you can truly understand what is being said. You yourself have already made the distinction in your response here of the difference between god’s word and those that represent him. This is a similar differentiation.

So, at best, you would appear to be on the same level as you allege for these Christians. That said, this is an obvious example of argumentum ad hominem, and, even if true, proves nothing whatsoever about the truth of Christianity. Certainly there are some stupid Christians (at least by your measure of stupidity); yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown).

OK here is an example of Ad Hominem.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Where did I attack you then say that you claim was false?

Oh, and yes there are many stupid atheist and many intelligent Christians. As a matter of fact one of the most intelligent people I have ever known is a Christian. Please point out where I said that all Christians were stupid.
By the way, your last sentence is a great example of Ad Hominem.

However, given the abundance of believers in the high ranks of academia, past and present, it is simply absurd to claim that Christianity is applicable to only those of subpar intelligence. I would offer that John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Gordon Clark, or Vincent Cheung are not the sorts of people anyone could call stupid without being mocked.

Wow I wouldn’t be using people like John Calvin to further your arguments for good upstanding Christians. I admit in advance that this is Ad Hominem but it is worth noting.

“Calvin believed that execution of dissenters was important not simply because it rid the world of heretics but also the public staging of it will send fear into the hearts of would-be apostates. Thus when a prominent citizen of Geneva, Jacques Gruet, complained about Calvin's increasing control over the affairs of the city, Calvin had Gruet executed by being burned alive. Sometimes he would give dissenters a choice between death or repudiating their works by making these heretics personally burn their books themselves.” Cite

Further, how do you know that Christianity has some "vague moral values", and that "the idea that God is necessary for moral behavior is not necessarily true"?

Because people that have never heard of God have similar moral codes.

What moral standard are you using to make such an allegation? What proof do you have that moral behavior was "developed through a meme as a means of survival"? You are again begging the question, thus basing your argument upon the very conclusion you are trying to prove. This would appear to be a very embarrassing thing for you to be doing, considering the way in which you lambast Josh McDowell for that exact fallacy (worse, in fact, since it is far from clear that McDowell actually commits that fallacy in the way you claim!)

The meme theory is just a theory. I never claimed it to be true, just one possible explanation. I do not think that you are in any position to attack me for using logical fallacies though. As a matter of fact the only concrete claim that I am making is that we do not know anything for certain. If you are right submit your proof.

Firstly, in order to draw the conclusion that this shows that moral behavior evolved, one would first have to assume evolutionary theory—at which point, you're effectively begging the question. It could, of course, equally be the case that the causality goes the other way: that is, that killing, raping, stealing and so on are evil because God has given human life a certain value, and these things are destructive to life.

First I am not begging the question because I have made no conclusions. Second you are begging the question by assuming that god has given human life a certain value. Let me show you.

1. God has given human life value

2 Because human life has value killing, raping and stealing are destructive to life.

X Assumption that god exist Cite

Secondly, neither your own view of morality, nor the biblical one (and they are quite different) comports with evolutionary theory in any case. For example, in your case, from an evolutionary point of view survival of the group is the ultimate good, and there is no means which is not acceptable to this end.

Not True. You are assuming that there is an ultimate good. Evolution does not assume an ultimate good. Evolution has no course and no purpose. Life adapts to an ever changing environment. I actually never understood why Christians didn’t embrace this. If god was going to create an ever changing world, then why wouldn't he create creatures that adapted continuously to an ever changing environment?

Therefore, there is no reason for individuals to not suffer, or for other groups to not be entirely destroyed, if it furthers this end. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, an evolutionist can certainly not criticize Stalin or Hitler (or war in general), since they were simply working to achieve the end of the survival of their groups, at the expense of others. Evolutionary theory, in fact, makes the concept of morality quite unintelligible, and one of the approaches I would take in refuting your worldview would be in showing this at more length.

Strawman, I never stated that my position was survival of groups “AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.” Again you have misrepresented my position. I also never claimed to agree with evolutionary theory 100%. I didn’t even address it. I just offered one tidbit as a plausible explanation. One thing that you seem to be confused about is that evolutionary theory does not deal with morality. It is simply a theory on the progression of life.

The biblical view of morality also does not comport with evolutionary theory; or, more precisely, it comports far better with a state of affairs where God actually exists. Consider, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments: to have no other God, to make no idols, and to not take the name of God in vain. These are the first of the commandments—what survival advantage do they convey? The only possible answer I can see is if you suppose that it is to encourage the cohesion of the group under a single religion. But if this is the case, then you have no basis to criticize this system of morality (yet atheists frequently do).

The first three commandments have nothing to do with the cohesion of a group. You are assuming in your argument that god is real and you haven’t even taken steps to offer proof. Let’s pretend that the preceding were performed by a group of people though. Of course they don’t have a survival advantage. This would actually be evidence that they were unnecessary. This is unless of course the people that committed these actions were suddenly struck down by god. Then, following these rules would have a distinct survival advantage. If uttering the word “god dammit” were going to get you struck down by god then it would be rare that you would hear someone say it. Have ever heard anyone say that word?

If it is an evolutionary system, then an evolutionist ought to approve the actions of the Israelites in destroying other cultures, and killing those of their own people who disobeyed the commandments. Strangely, few evolutionists take this position. This highlights an inconsistency that belies the real state of affairs, and puts you in a catch-22: either you should accept biblical morality, or you should come up with another theory about how morality works. Secular humanism asserts the equal rights and inherent value of all human beings—which is a decidedly un-evolutionary sort of moral assertion. It also relies on some kind of concept of "rights" and "value" which simply doesn't exist in a materialist, evolutionary worldview.

I think I need to use your own words to respond to this.

“to provide a speculative, unsubstantiated, and frankly bizarre explanation of the topic at hand.”

Please tell me what the Israelites killing other cultures and killing their own people has to do with anything that we have discussed here. If actually does then tell how you reconcile using this example given the inconstancies in the story itself?

But what does this prove? Your statement seems to suppose an implicit moral judgment, which is that science is superior to Christianity by reason of its ability to admit when it is wrong. But consider:Firstly, you are supposing that Christianity is wrong, and that it refuses to admit it. Again, this is really the very question at hand, so you are again question-begging.

Secondly, you are supposing that science's "flexibility" makes it a superior method of discovering truth. But the very basis for this supposed flexibility is the fact that, so far, it has always been wrong, and has had to revise its theories for this reason. In other words, you are claiming that a method which openly results in error, and which can never prove that it is right even if it is, is a superior knowledge-acquisition process to that of divine revelation, which is never wrong and never needs revision!

You have to be kidding me. There are so many errors in the Bible. I have listed several. Then you are going to say that the flexibility of science is a flaw. If I am wrong about something and I admit it, correct it and present the new right answer to the world, then you would take issue with me? Science is a way of knowing things by testing and re-testing. Do you understand the many things that you would be without in this day and age without the trial and error process? Electricity, telephone, the computer that you are typing this on. Seriously, do you think that god created all of those things?

What does the behavior of Jesus' followers have to do with the truth of his claims? I have personally met a lot of Christians, and most have been moderate, intelligent people with an enthusiasm for knowledge and reason—an enthusiasm informed by a proper understanding (albeit often an implicit one) of the underlying issues of epistemology, which are critical to any pursuit of these things. They are certainly not hateful (unless you mean they hate sin), un-accepting (except, again, of sin), and neither name-call nor engage in bigotry. They do not insist on everyone becoming a Christian.

This is an appeal to popularity. Although I will admit that my assertion was based on experience, I don’t believe that I ever stated that this was reminiscent of “all Christians.” Did you click on any of the links for examples though? You are quick to cast off those that claim Christianity but "embarrass" the faith, while claiming all of those close to you who you feel "embrace" it. Do you know the name of this fallacy?

Perhaps you are thinking of extreme Muslims. A Christian preaches the good news because he is commanded to in Scripture, and desires to see souls saved rather than damned in hell. But he does not insist on people becoming Christians, and indeed he knows that they cannot apart from God's sovereign work in their hearts.

So, not only have you misrepresented Christians, but you've engaged in another ad hominem attack. If this is the most powerful argument you can muster by way of closing, I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate. That said, I understand that Frank is not planning to respond, since you have not chosen to pursue the debate on the terms he originally requested (ie, a formal and moderated forum).

As far as Frank is concerned, he only needed to ask for more time. I was not willing to be dragged along indefinitely by him especially after fielding well over 80 inflammatory comments. At first glance it appeared that your response was intelligent, collective and civil. I have witnessed nothing but name calling, empty assertions and strawman attacks. I am happy to continue this debate, but I suggest that you continue in a civil tone. If you feel that I have not been civil please point it out and I will do my best to accommodate in future conversations.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Christians should not be allowed to drive!

The thought occurred to me the other day that if we are to take Christians seriously then we have to take them at their word on all of the things that they claim to believe in. This got me thinking about the common Christian belief in “the rapture.”

For those that are not familiar with this notion, let me briefly explain. The Christians believe that when Jesus died and went to heaven that he promised he would come back again and take all of his followers up to heaven with him. This would happen while they were still alive and in their fleshly form here on the earth. The rapture will precede a time on earth called the “tribulation.” During the tribulation god’s wrath will be brought down on a defiant Earth. God will spare those that were loyal to him. Immediately before the tribulation occurs he will take his followers up to heaven in the rapture.

I know it is a very confusing fairy tale as there are some guest appearances by four men riding horses through the cities of the great nations (probably the U.S.) and killing the wicked that remain behind. (I hope those horse riders can withstand our advanced weapons technologies.) Then there will be a guest appearance by this guy called the “Anti-Christ” (Most likely played by Anthony Hopkins in the eventual made for T.V. movie version) who will cause some very serious shit to go down! Anyways it is all very serious and scary stuff that has allowed authors Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye to get filthy rich off of the naive Christians through their “Left Behind” fiction series.

I digress though. The point of my rant here is that if we are supposed to take Christians at their word then we must believe that they will one day just “poof” vanish into thin air. If this is the case then we should act now to make sure that anyone that claims to be a Christian is not allowed to have a drivers license, operate heavy machinery, fly a plane or serve in the military. I mean seriously, if they are going to just vanish one day, could you imagine the devastation and chaos of millions of vehicles and work post suddenly being unmanned? It is important that we begin to protect our safety right away by taking away the rights of Christians to be involved in anything in this world that could affect anyone else.

In all seriousness we should at least ban people from driving who have this bumper sticker on their car.

Caught in a lie!

Frank Walton (click here for a powerful de-conversion tool) has tried everything that he could to get me to forfeit the debate that he challenged me to. I was trying to figure out why he didn't want to have it. He told me that he had taken care of setting up a moderated forum and would get back to me when they were ready for us. After a week I sent off an email to the forum that he said he was using.

Angels-Could you please let me know if you have a request pending for a moderated debate from Frank Walton and what the status is on it.

Dee Dee Warren(of asked us a while ago and said he would let us know if he wanted to. I haven't heard anything recently.

Wait, didn't Frank say he was waiting to hear back from them and that it takes some time to set it up? Well I thought I would ask.

Angels-If I wanted to set up a moderated debate on your site, how much notice would I need to give you?

Dee Dee Warren-It would depend on exactly what you need, meaning what parameters you and your opponent agree to. Generally speaking, one week.

So Frank never even attempted to set up the debate!!! Interesting. I sent this email off to Frank

Angels-You have one day left to set up the debate, unless of course you
would like an extension. All you have to do is ask. You do want to
have a debate right?

Frank sent this reply

Frank-You have to let go, psycho boy. Honestly, you're hurting yourself here over nothing. It's easy: a fair moderated forum, then we debate. But we all know you don't want a fair forum where the rules are strictly enforced. Because the only way you want to defeat your opponent is if you are unfair. If you truly want to take me on, then you'd wait for a fair debate. How hard is that? It wouldn't be so hard to see it from a fair perspective had your head not been up your butt for so long. The balls (sic) in your court, stupid. Can your dumb ass not wait for a fair forum? I guess I'll find out tomorrow, eh? But if you post your opening tomorrow, I am vindicated as far as my perspective on (sic)you is concerned..(gic) that you are truly a cowardly individual who never wanted to debate fairly.

So Frank never even attempted to set up a debate forum or write an opening statement. All he did was attack my blog with over 80 inflammatory comments from his sock puppet and home accounts. Weak dude, weak! I guess everyone was right about me wasting my time. All he needed was enough rope and.......... well, you've seen it for yourself now! LOL! Anyways, now that he has forfeited, here is my opening argument................................. enjoy!!!!

CLICK Does god exist?

Does god exist?

The difficulty in debating whether or not “God” exists in any form (Allah, Jesus, Buddha ect….) is very difficult to take on. Even more difficult is the position that such a being does not exists. The arguments for God are typically from emotion and introspection rather than from any sort of empirical evidence. It is understandable that past generations needed something to fill in the void of knowledge that our highly overdeveloped frontal lobes have a constant need to accumulate. So ancient civilizations created these sky creatures to explain phenomena such as thunderstorms, earthquakes and anything else that did not make sense to them. As science emerged we became more informed about our surrounding world and had less of a need for the superstitions of the past. But just because a scientific breakthrough is made doesn’t mean that the entire world is immediately brought into the loop. Governments especially, utilized religion as a means of controlling the population. Many that would be willing to resist facing punishment in this life would be unlikely to disobey someone promising torture for eternity in the next life and so the meme of religion was carried on. It is used to justify horrible actions, explain away difficult topics to children and keep entire populations of people under control. Although science has no vendetta for the institution of religion, it appears to be attacking it simply because it’s findings often contradict the Bible. While religion tends to change slowly or often be very static, science tends to discard theories that are proven untrue in the place of theories that hold truer. But what does this have to do with the topic of the existence of God?

As many people before me, who are much more intelligent than I am will tell you, the topic of whether or not god exist is nearly an impossible question to tackle. You are being asked to disprove the existence of something that has absolutely no proof for its existence in the first place. If there is no real proof on either side then even to have someone win a formal debate on the topic would still stand to prove absolutely nothing. In cases like this I need to point out that it is important to understand that THE BURDEN OF PROOF RELIES SOLELY ON THE PERSON MAKING THE FANTASTIC OR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM! I know that this is seen by many as a cop out, which is why I have agreed to this debate. My hope is that I will have an opportunity to field some questions. I might even possibly be proven wrong and come to find that Jesus is the one and only true God. It might be a powerful conversion story. All that I demand in order for this to happen though is to be shown evidence of God’s existence.

Unfortunately it seems that the majority of things that Christians consider evidence are passages from the Christian Bible. I spent this winter reading Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that demands a verdict. This was supposed to be the” tell all” book of empirical evidence to prove that God exist. The book spends about 120 pages pathetically trying to clear up the ever so clear discrepancies in Biblical passages. Then it spends another 500 pages or so citing the Bible as “empirical proof” of the validity of God’s existence. It seems that it failed McDowell’s logic that this is what is commonly referred to as circular reasoning.

Christians like to explain away Biblical inconsistencies by implying that since God is above human understanding that we don’t have the ability to see the bigger picture. Yet there are so many things in this world that are in such conflict with the type of God that the Christians try to present to the world. For example, if Christianity is the only true religion and the only true path to heaven, then what does God do about the millions of people that were born in regions of the world where Christianity will never even be heard of? Are those people doomed to hell simply through their geographical place of birth?

The countless biblical inconstancies are hard to reconcile as well. There are so many clearly violent and horrific acts in the Bible that it makes one wonder where the idea of a loving and forgiving God came from. If the Bible is proof of god’s existence then it would certainly be reasonable to assume that the god the Bible would prove to be real would certainly not be the god that the Christians are trying to present to us.

The facts remain that every religion, including one’s that were in existence before Christianity have similar types of myths. These range from creation and flood stories to virgin births and ressurections of their saviors. It seems that there is not much to set Christianity apart from other religions of the world, past or present.

I believe that religion can be of value to societies. It gives people with subpar intelligence the motivation to keep living, working and producing for their society. It has some vague moral values with a punisher that will be watching you even when no other person is. The idea that God is necessary for moral behavior is not necessarily true. The basis for what we refer to as moral behavior was developed through a meme as a means of survival.

One of the most important evolutions in man’s history was our ability and willingness at some point to come together and live in groups. This offered protection and safety. New rules had to be established though. It is unlikely that these rules were established by a council, or a meeting or a mythical book that was found. More than likely these rules were established through evolution. If you look at what we call moral behavior, it is nothing more than actions that make survival of a group more likely. If you don’t kill members of your own group, don’t sleep with their mates (adultery), don’t lie, do share your food, and protect your children then your group’s genes and your own have a much better chance of surviving into the next generation. A group of humans that did not adopt this sort of behavior would be more likely to be dispersed and die due to their significantly smaller numbers. There we have moral behavior without god.

So if that is true then we go to the ultimate question. Where did we come from? Christians have a clear answer. They say that god created us. Well considering the lack of sufficient evidence it is another claim that cannot be easily refuted. Christians figure that since science can’t seem to prove it, then that means their argument must hold up by design. All arguments for the creation of our world are ultimately flawed. The true difference between science and religion is that science is willing to say “this is our best theory, and we are willing to research it and change if need be” were as Christians tend to say “This is the truth, you are either with us or against us.”

If it can be proven that Jesus is the one true god, then I would have no choice but to follow him. Unfortunately all I have found in the followers of Jesus is fanaticism, a lack of willingness to seek knowledge or reason, hate, un-acceptance,name calling and bigotry. I understand that it is an exclusive club, but if you want to leave everyone out then you need to stop insisting that everyone comes in!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Another Christian sent to heaven!

Aaron Richard Snyder had a bad day on July 17th 2007. Before renting a tux and taking a gun down to the state capitol he wrote this email.

"Thank you very much for hiring me. I have not properly identified myself. I am the emperor, the sovereign rule of this nation. God has bestowed this honor on me. Today is the appointed day in which God has chosen for me to begin my reign. I have decided to favour (sic) Advanced Energies as a company. Please keep the Emperor's desk free for my use in R and D purposes when I have spare time. I take engineering very seriously. With love in Jesus Christ, signed Aaron Aurelius Ricardus Constantinus."

Aaron pulled his gun out in the capitol building and an officer shot him dead. I am sure that this was all part of God’s divine plan though. All I have to say is, great shooting! A huge pat on the back to the quick thinking officer who downed this wacko before any innocent bystanders got hurt or killed. Check out the whole article here!

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Frank Walton may actually be crazy!

here are the back and forth emails where Frank Walton tries a few times to get out of debating me. LOL He keeps bouncing around and is a bit hard to keep up with at times. I used to think he was retarded but now I am leaning towards him possibly being schizophrenic or having multiple personalities. He actually starts out seemingly normal and then gets crazier and crazier. Judge for yourself. If he ends up backing out I will post my opening statement for all to see.

Frank- I'm seeing if will host and moderate our debate. I just emailed them so I'll get back to you.

Frank- Are you an agnostic or atheist or what?

Angels- Agnostic leaning towards atheist. What type of Christian are you? Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Methodist, Orthodox, Presbyterian, congregational ect ect ect

Frank- You're an agnostic. Just great. Seriously, JK I find those initials very ironic, by the way, do you really want to have a debate?

Angels- Let me know if you are planning on backing out. It would save me some valuable time. Could you please answer my question about your affiliation? BTW I will be debating from the position of an Atheist.

Frank- I'm an orthodox partial-preterist.

Frank- You will be debating on the position that you are an atheist, yet you just told me you were also an agnostic, oh, but, uh, you lean toward atheism. What in the world are you? Do you even know? I suppose a theist who leans toward atheism would make sense to you.

Angels-Frank, I was really hoping to have a civil debate with you. Are you capable of this. How quickly do you need email responses before you freak out on your page? Please tell me that you are willing to have an open and honest debate. I see the insultfest is starting, I would like to avoid that. I have seen some of your debates before and you have moments that are very enlightning. Strawman attacks are not neccesary. I will be civil if you will be. Please don't make stuff up.

Frank- 2 can play at this game: Why are you playing innocent? You mean to tell me you were being civil just now? Why are you making things up? If you really want a debate, Angelpoo, don't you think the best thing to do is to actually be as cordial as possible? If so, then why aren't you?

Angels-I am ready to post, just waiting on you. You have 17 minutes to respond to this email. LOL just kidding :)

Frank- I'm still waiting for the forum people to get back to me to see if they'll host and moderate our debate.

Angels- Here is a comment from you on my page

"PS I'll approve your comments the moment you start being rational, and not so much of an ass."

Here is the comment you refuse to post

"Dude, we were on a label, how clear can I be? BTW I responded to your email 17 minutes after you sent it. What type of turn around do you need? I understand if you are not going to post my comments from now on. I would be worried about how I look if i were you. When did I say that you denied that I was once a Christian and deconverted? You are so wierd!"

Doesn't seem to be irrational, hmmmmm I wonder why you wont post it? Maybe because it exposes your lie!

An agnostic can lean towards being an atheist because an agnostic is saying that there is no proof for or against the existance of god. While he might feel that one side is more or less correct he feels that he has not seen enough evidence to commit to either.

I am not scared to have any of your comments on my blog. Why are you scared to have mine on yours? It is interesting that you want to attack me on your page without giving me a chance to respond and defend myself, and you said that you don't take lessons from FOX news!

Frank- You never answered: do you abide by the rules of the debate? the word counts, etc.?

Angels- Sure, sounds fair

Frank- Who says I won't allow you to comment, Angel? You don't need my blog to make a comment. Is it too hard and difficult for you to go mention your comment in your own blog? Why act like such an immature baby? Really.

Angels-I did put it in my own blog. When I attack you there I will let you defend yourself there. Just wish you were man enough to do the same thing

Frank- I would like the debate to be about the existence of God. It would be titled: "Does God exist?" If you don't know whether God exists or not, then why debate?

Angels- My opening is complete, if you want to back out then ask nicely!

Frank- If you put it in your own blog, then why do you keep acting like a baby about it? Didn't you study psychology? I would suggest you take more of it. I'm man enough to allow comments in my blog, but I'm rational enough to see which ones are actually okay or not. Anyway, again, I see that you put your parenthetical notes within my statements. *SIGH* True cowardice.

Angels- And not allowing comments isn't? Nice Frank, very nice!

Frank- If you could wait then be patient, angelpoo. I'm too busy rocking out to your oh so gnarly music. Dude, I'm serious, you're rreeeaallllyyy good. It's the stuff of legends like Sonny and Cher's "I got you babe."

Angels- Hey you should tell that to Chris *********. He is a big fan of your work, you are in his top friends on myspace. He is the singer and songwriter. He has won a Dove award and is kind of a big deal in apologetics. Did I mention that two of the three bands were on labels. Oh yea, I did, but you didn't allow that comment did you? Cowardice is right! LOL

Frank- If it sounds fair why do you keep emailing me over and over again about the debate? If you so desperately want, go ahead and put your opening up in your blog, since you brag about having it done already. Or do you want to wait for a formal and moderated forum to do this? I find it hard to trust you to actually follow the rules. So far, you've just been acting like a coward with your cowardly antics.

Angels- I am loving your emails, keep them coming please. If we are doing a formal debate with a moderator then wouldn't it give you an unfair advantage to see mine first? You are the one that said that they go up at the same time. Don't be mad because you're not done yet. I am ready for you!

Frank- Not allowing comments that are rational, yes.

Angels- So you don't allow comment that are rational? I don't get you Frank

Frank- He won a dove award? Dude, the "dove" awards suck. I don't care too much for "Christian" music. I'm on record for saying that, genius.

Frank- I love your emails, too! Yeah, I suggested we go at the same time. But you're as desperate as a child who wants his candy to start the debate, so if you want, put up your opening. I don't care what you do. And how would putting your opening up first be unfair. Many debates start with an individual starting first. Boy, are you desperate to find fault in me. Go put this email in your post, pscyo boy.

Angels- Just letting you know I am ready Frank. try to keep it civil. This crybaby act does not look good!

Frank- Woops, I meant "irrational". That was a type-o. I thought you would get that at least, psycho boy. Thanks though. Frank

Angels- Of course. Sorry for not reading in between the lines. I will try better to figure out what you actually meant to type in future emails and post. My bad!

Frank- Then stop crying like a baby, psycho boy. How many times do I have to keep telling you that? I know you're ready. You've told me that over a hundred times already. Yet every time I tell you, you have to wait for a moderator (which you're cool with), you impatiently send me email over email. And cry and cry, again, like a little baby.

Angels- Ha ha ha. That's awesome coming from the guy who posted this
"I insist you make further comments in your own blog for now on, Angel.. I know you're only here to act like an infinitely perpetual ass. By the way, I sent you about 2 emails on debating and I haven't heard from you yet. oh, but you do have time to comment here, don't you? Whatever."

You are probably my favorite Christian!

Frank- Thank you, psycho boy. So when I tell you to "be patient" it doesn't mean to send me an endless amount of emails rushing me, okay? You have to keep reading between the lines.

Angels- I have sent you one email back for each one that you have sent me. LOL I will post them in order so you can see!

Frank- Thanks, psycho boy. You're probably my favorite stalker next to Ted Bell. Now, *that's* a stalker who just can't leave me alone. Let me tell ya!

Frank- Great! And I responded in kind to all the emails you sent me. Tell your readers I said "hi!", psycho boy.

Someone talk me out of this!

Well I commented on Frank’s page regarding another one of his apparent “debate victories.” Frank asked for a debate and I accepted. It wasn’t long after that that the insults started to fly. I think that it is obvious that Frank tries to badger his debate opponents into saying “fuck you, forget it” so that he can say that he won by forfeit. Frank loves to censor the conversations so I will post them here with parenthetical remarks………. Just because he hates the so much Hahahahahaha. Frank you can’t bitch about me using parenthetical remarks when you censor out entire comments.

(It began here with a comment I made on Frank’s blogsite)
Wow! You win a lot of debates by forfeit!

(Franks Response)
Wow! I didn't say I won by forfeit, you moron! (Aw yes, the insults begin)LOL! It's not like you know what fair debate is like.

(My stupid mistake starts here!)
I will debate you any day Frank! You just keep running scared. It's sad!

(Frank responds)
So then let's debate. The last time we had a discourse, what did you do? You actually put your parenthetical words into my words. (Ha ha, I’m doing it again!) That's a cowardly act if I ever saw one! (So is not approving comments, but hey, everyone runs their sites based on their own set of rules and ideas right?)You obviously don't like to fight fair. (YOU DO?)

Here's what our format will be:

Opening statements: no more than 1500 words.
First Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.
Second Rebuttals: no more than 800 words.
Conclusions: no more than 600 words.

Duration of the debate: 10 days.


-Using and quoting your opponents words in your statements and rebuttals and conclusion counts in your word count. For instance, if angelsdepart said: "Frank speaks about God and says 'He's a great, cool, gnarly being.' I deny such a being." The word count here is 17, not 11.
-No excessively quoting a source. For instance, quoting lengthy paragraph after paragraph from a source
-No plagiarism.
- No ad hominems.
-Linking is okay so long as you don't use it as an argument for instance, "checkout this link that deals with everything my opponent says", etc..
-References don't count in your word count. (Sounds fair so far)

And since you have a tendency of putting your words into mine I insist we have a moderator. So, let's do this, evolved monkey. (Insults again!)

(I respond)
Who goes first, and who do you suggest moderates? If you are going to hurl insults through the debate, then it will probably not be productive. You can use this account if you want to email.

(Frank responds. Things seem to be going alright now. I actually have a moment where I think this might be civil)
Let me find a moderator. Our openings go up at the same time. I'll email you.

(Never mind, here is the Frank we all know and love)
I'm telling you, angelsdepart, the moment you act like an ass and break the rules it shows that you can't handle a fair debate. I know of your cowardly antics and you best not back down like Drew. I'm going to have fun taking you on.

(My response just to be sure)
One more thing. Which god are we debating about? The Christian one? Ancient Greeks? Allah? Just want to be sure before we get started. Oh yea, do you want a picture so that you can put some cute text around it. How about a list of college degrees, accomplishments and certifications so that you can show everyone how smart you are when you claim that you won at the end. Let me know. (OK ok I admit, I am being an ass again! Ha ha ha.)

I have no college degree yet. (What? But he is so smart!)What do you have, Angel? You have (had, as in the past) a band that has no record label. (Two of my bands were on labels) Anyway, we'll let the people decide whether you or I win.

(Now I get down to exposing him. This is usually were Frank starts to dance)
Had you actually read through the Myspace page that you are referencing you would have seen that not only was that band from my past but also that they were a popular Christian band that was on Metro One Records. (This is clear right? I thought so too, but wait for Franks response!) I would not be surprised to find out that you own a couple of the albums before the name changed from Blackball to TheSuperUnknown. It is probably not wise to show that you assume and make things up right before a debate. Oh yea, since you asked, I have a B.A. in Psychology and studied theology as a minor. I am definitely open to the truth. If you can prove to me that God exist I will gladly accept him/her. Hopefully that is what you try to do rather than your usual insultfest! (Not a chance!)

(This is the Frank Walton I really love)
Where did I deny that you were once a Christian and then deconverted to non-belief? (Seriously, someone please find were I said that!) All I was implying that you're crappy music whether Christian or not sucked so bad you couldn't find a label. (Frank may not be able to read.) It is probably not wise to show that you assume and make things up right before a debate. (I totally remember now that he does this. Frank love to rehash what you just said and throw it back at you!) LOL! I love this guy. I just found out Angelsdepart isn't even an atheist. So, what inevitably you're going to do, Angel, is just stand back on the offensive end while I play defense, right? (If you are the one making all of the claims then wouldn’t I be playing defense? Is this guy serious?) I answer to all the hard questions (Grammar check please) while you do little or nothing to defend your own thoughts. Typical cowardly antics. I insist you make further comments in your own blog for now on, Angel. (Of course, because he is scared) I know you're only here to act like an infinitely perpetual ass. By the way, I sent you about 2 emails on debating and I haven't heard from you yet. oh, but you do have time to comment here, don't you? Whatever.

(Here is the comment that was not approved on Frank’s site!)
Dude, we were on a label, how clear can I be? (Seriously) BTW I responded to your email 17 minutes after you sent it. (This is true, I will show anyone the timestamps if they would like to see them) What type of turn around do you need? I understand if you are not going to post my comments from now on. I would be worried about how I look if I were you. When did I say that you denied that I was once a Christian and deconverted? You are so weird!

Well, angelsdepart just told me he's an agnostic who leans toward atheism. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, angelpoo. Being an agnostic is so much more easier because you hardly ever make claims about anything at all! But I see what you're saying. (God forbid that one’s position is easier. Since when is have a worldview that is easy to understand a crime? Should we all believe in crazy sky Gods? Would that make Frank feel better?)

(Anyways I don’t want to dedicate to much time to Frank. Just wanted to let people see what happens when you agree to debate him.)

A letter to Al Qaeda

Dear Mr. Osama Bin Laden

I wasn’t sure if your war was with America or if it was against Christianity. I wanted to be the one to tell you that even though a large portion of this country is Christian, not all of us are. I don’t think that it is fair that I have to be caught in the middle of an ideological war when I clearly don’t subscribe to either side. I do not want to be a casualty of a war over a god or gods that I don’t believe exist. I think that it would only be fair to arrange a fair battle somewhere away from those of us that don’t believe in god’s or magic. This way you could have a face to face battle and allow your gods to determine who is right by seeing who is left standing at the end. I am tired of having to wonder if I am going to get blown up every time I get on an airplane because I don’t believe that Allah or Jesus is god. I am sure that they were both great people. I know Jesus was fond of turning water into wine and I think that this was a really cool trick. I have been trying to learn it for a while now. An airplane though is no place for religion. Actually this planet is no place for religion but I think we are beyond repair on that point. Anyways I will gladly sit on the sidelines while the religions fight. If it is necessary for the winner to have everyone believe in what they believe, I will play along. After all the worst thing that can happen is that I will go to heaven right?