If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

Know The Lord

I recently overheard a very disturbing conversation. One woman was very upset because her friend was on his deathbed due to cancer. She was telling her friend about it and her friend asked her if the dying friend “knew the Lord.”

I was just overhearing this conversation and it wouldn’t be polite for me to interject, but in my mind, had this woman said that to me while I was upset about a dying friend, I would have really bitched her out. That is probably one of the most insensitive things I have heard in a long time.

It really isn’t all that surprising though. It isn’t unusual for Christians to use grief to propagate their ridiculous beliefs. But what really bothers me about this is that this woman actually thinks she is concerned about her friend’s dying friend. What if her friend told her that the guy was Jewish or Buddhist or even dare I say it… an atheist? How fucking comforting would that be?

“No, he didn’t ‘know the Lord,’ he was an atheist. So I guess he will be tortured for all eternity. Thanks for reminding me.”

I can’t believe that Christians actually believe that their God (as depicted in the Bible) is a loving God who send/allows (depending on the spin) people to be tortured for all eternity. That one aspect of Christianity alone makes it one of the most ridiculous belief systems on the planet. I guess that is why so many Christians just re-write the Bible in their minds so that Hell either doesn’t exist or is only for the really, really bad people.

The truth is that with people like this woman around, Sartre had it right; Hell is other people.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://myspace.com/scott888 Scott

    The argument I keep making is that even if somehow God is real, should one allow themselves to be abused by this tyrant? The God in the bible is an immoral insane character. There was a version of the bible rejected by Constitine that says that God was an insane being that created a cruel world and that his son Jesus was sane and was the one that would save the people from his father. Heck, that version of the bible might have been better than the trinity stuff that Constitine created that same meeting.

    Anyhow, regardless of that, the bible still shows us that God is an insane, crazy, immoral being. While the bible has portrayed Satan as the character that tempted people (aka, he tried to make people question things like a rational person should). The bible demonizes the character that represents knowledge, scrutiny of corrupt authority, and a resistant force against a tyrant.

    So while the argument is that one goes to hell for rejecting God, it is entirely possible that with Satan being more sane and rational than God, that it would be a better place than heaven. Of all the chapters in the bible, the last one (Revelations) seems to have been tacked on to help the Romans put the final touch on Christianity so it would work politically with them. It is the one that created the heaven and hell concept and added an end of world thing as a way to say that someday sinners will get punished even though they get away with it now.

    Christians are people of cowardice since they fear the fires of hell and/or the lack of an afterlife. Atheist look at the prospect of hell and true mortality and laugh in the face of some of the worst things that could happen to them.

    Atheists have courage and wisdom as a result of that courage. Christians get some comfort but also are slaves to their own fears.

  • http://DangerousTalk Scott Pleune

    I enjoyed the interesting, and personal story. I hope to talk to you more about it soon. Hopefully, at the Atheist Meetup tomorrow night. I have questions about tone, and context.

    My first reaction is not to think that anyone was “insensitive” in this story. The concerned Christian friend was very deluted, and mistaken, but not necessarily insensitive. In fact her questioning of someone’s “knowledge of the Lord”, seems like it might have been very in line with her own mistaken sensibilities. She likely felt that she was being very sensitive to the “eternal” fate of her friend’s friend. She also might have a concern about the friend’s friend’s state of mind, and mood, at the prospect of lossing there worldly life. It is widely thought that belief in a heavenly afterlife, makes appoaching death easier. Of course, we both know, belief in an afterlife is not necessary for making peace with the idea of death. However, many believers do not see how non-believers can make peace with the idea of their death.

    Anyway, if a friend asked me about a dying friend’s “knowledge of the Lord,” i would have no problem giving an honest answer. My answer would be that i don’t think that anyone really has any real varifiable knowledge of the Lord. I don’t think there is a Lord to know.

    I would also be tempted to ask for more detail about the questioner’s conceptualization of what it means to “know the Lord?”

  • magsmagenta

    There are already Christians claiming that, It’s pretty much what Opera said on her show when she was talking to Diana Nyad and telling her she must believe in God because she feels Awe and Wonder and that’s what God is. It sounds to me like she has it backwards and Opera is actually an Atheist in everything but name.

    • Steve Willy

      Thanks for this steaming pile of regurgitated pseudo-intellectual neck bearded blather you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouche.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Way to spew insults instead of having a point.

        • Steve Willy

          “When everything is moving at once, nothing appears to be moving, as on board ship. When everyone is moving toward depravity, no one seems to be moving, but if someone stops, he shows up the others who are rushing on, by acting as a fixed point.”
          Blaise Pascal, quoted in The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage (Page 170)

          • Nerdsamwich

            Ever been on the water? The seasick will be the first to tell you that you can indeed tell that everything is most definitely moving. Furthermore, so what? What the fornicating demon feces does that have to do with the way “Guest” up there just copy-pasted a stream of puerile and incorrect insults in lieu of making a counterpoint? Where I come from, a non sequitur is consiered comic relief, not an argument.

            • Steve Willy

              Wow it sounds like you’re pretty smart, AND an atheist too? You must have read a lot of books. I guess God is imaginary then. Check mate, monothesim! Religion flies people into the moon! The Jesus story was stolen from Thor! If only believers just understood evolutionary cosmology better! Aquinas’ Five Ways were disproved by cosmic background radition. Oh, you don’t know about cosmic background radiation, you poor ignorant theist. Something about Zeus, Baal, Apollo… One step further! Dogs and bees can smell fear…. Baah! Allah also died and resurrected. Oh, you say he didn’t, well why should I have to know theology if God is imaginary. Baaah, the emperor has no clothes. Existence is not an attribute. We know now from quantum mechanics that nothing has a cause. The human head weights 8 pounds. Yada yada.
              Did I just pretty much sum up your entire view of reality?

              • Nerdsamwich

                You think my worldview is summed up by a collection of ridiculous, inaccurate non-sequiturs? Do you have an idea that you wish to discuss, or are you just here to be a particularly inept troll? Let me guess, you’re also Mr. Guest up there. If so, congratulations on ditching the old copy-paste for a slightly more entertaining, if still irrelevant and disjointed, one. As I said to Guest(you?) earlier, if you ever have a hankering for a real discussion of actual ideas–not just flinging handfuls of straw back and forth–you know where to find me.

  • Steve Willy

    6 Wow, your comments have really opened my eyes. I mean, this is mind blowing stuff! You make some powerful points, except … let’s put the Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid down for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality…. Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position. In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe. Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are a clown. Also, Snow White, FTW atheism is incoherent: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-argument-from-reason/

    I recently heard lecture from Fr. Robert Spitzer SJ who founded th

  • Steve Willy

    It is so sad that you think there is a point to this sophomoric, faux-analytical, pseudo-intellectual blather. This ‘article’ commits so many Fallacies of the Neck Bearded Douche that it is not worth recounting. For any thinking man, the only appropriate response would be to kick the author in the balls. Stfu you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling faux-philosophical megadouche
    rYours is a petty trivial localized earth bound philosophy unworthy of the universe .

    • Nerdsamwich

      And my universe is too big for your god.

      • Steve Willy

        Wow, this is powerful stuff. I mean, these ideas really blew my mind! I’m going to have to re-evaluate a lot of things. Except, well…. Let’s put the faux-analytical hyperbole away for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument, First Cause/Unmoved Mover, the impossibility of infinite causal regress, the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality… While you sit there in your Hitchens-Dawkins parroting bubble and regurgitate pseudo-intellectual douchisms, your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.
        In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.
        Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an ass.
        Also, FTW atheism is incoherent:
        http://communities.washingtont
        http://www.catholicthinker.net
        http://www.peterkreeft.com/top
        http://www.reasonsforgod.org/t

        • Nerdsamwich

          As to unoriginality, I thought that was the theme. I was merely
          answering your comment in kind. However, I did not quote either Dawkins or Hitchens, but rather paraphrased Carl Sagan. All of the “arguments” you named after your first bout of unnecessary name-calling are, frankly, bullshit. They are refuted so easily and often that there are standard refutations easily found in a couple of minutes on Google. Maybe people would stop quoting Hitchens and Dawkins around you if you’d stop using arguments they effortlessly refute on a daily basis. Familiarize yourself, sheep. Gee, name-calling IS fun! Let’s see, now to your questions, assuming I don’t miss one in the veritable stew of bile. You’ve never met me, dude, why the fuck do you presume to judge my life? I’m bothering to comment because I like to argue. I like a civil argument better, but if you want to be a dick, that works too. 1) Why does there need to be an objective basis for all the stuff you claim I have no objective basis for? I know what I prefer, and can observe other humans to find out what they prefer, and then work to make all our lives subjectively better. True, I don’t get to trample self-righteously on the rights of minorities, but I do get to actually BE morally superior, instead of just feeling that way. For non-human things, I can take measurements and check them with measurements taken by others to ensure that they’re correct. Wow, you cover a whole lot of questions with just two little bullet points. Can’t you count any higher? Speaking of which, 2) I remain alive because I love it. I enjoy the company of family and friends, I have a beautiful daughter to cherish and watch grow, I relish the challenge that each new day brings, I eagerly await the news that more awesome mysteries of existence have been solved, and I’m just not ready to move on to whatever comes next. I like it here. Why do you keep living? With all your descriptions of earthly woes, and heaven waiting just around the corner, what on earth keeps you going? Is it just because your church tells you that offing yourself is a sin? That’s an awfully sad life, man. At this point, I have to interject, why the assumption about the state of my facial hair? My beard is full and flowing, a bastion of Norse glory. Finally, I’m hopeful/agnostic towards Thor, and your Gardener is probably nonexistent. If he does exist, he’s a bigger asshole than you. Let me translate that into sheepfucker: your regurgitated arguments are stale, tired, and weak, your religion is backward, and you are a self-important, bullying douche.

          PS: Only one of your links works, and it links to the teleological argument. If that’s your idea of an atheism-buster, damn. You have succeeded in the impressive task of being even dumber than I thought. Seriously, that is the most ridiculous, ass-backwards bullshit imaginable, aside from any of Craig’s other arguments. The conditions of the universe aren’t fine-tuned for life, you cretin; life, by means of evolution, is fine-tuned for the universe. You know what IS logically incoherent? Omnipotence and omniscience existing in the same universe, let alone the same being. Bitch.

          • Steve Willy

            Despite your steaming pile of faux-analytical neck bearded blather, I think you tacitly know that my comment kicks atheism in the balls and leaves it curled up on the ground in a fetal position gasping for the air that it knows it doesn’t deserve but that it selfishly sucks down anyway to satisfy its solipsistic hedonism.

            • Nerdsamwich

              See, now you’re just a sad and obvious troll. I tried to have a real discussion with you, but it seems you’re just too far up your own ass. I can tell you didn’t even bother to read my response, since I took the time to correct your unfortunate misconceptions about my facial hair. If you want to actually have an exchange of ideas next time you come up for air from gargling all that priest-cock, you know how to find me.

  • Nerdsamwich

    A bit off topic, but how long does a comment usually “await moderation” on this site? I’m trying to reply to a comment that’s over three hours old, and it won’t let me because the post isn’t active yet. Kinda bumming me out.

    • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

      Generally speaking, there is no moderation. ALL comments are posted except when the program thinks they are spam. This guy spammed multiple posts with the same comment so it was seen as spam by the program. I have allowed the comment to go through on this post only so you can respond. Assuming this is the correct comment. Otherwise, I have no idea what comment you are talking about.

      My comment policy is pretty generous. It is very rare that I delete a comment or prevent a comment for being posted.

      • Nerdsamwich

        That was indeed it. I have now responded in kind. Thanks, and enjoy!

    • Steve Willy

      The site knows you are a Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, basement dwelling, faux-intellectual assclown, spouting pseudo-philosophies that are so petty, so trivial, so earth bound, so unworthy of the universe that its trying not to publish them.

      • Nerdsamwich

        Dude, I don’t know who your spy is, but you should fire his ass. My house doesn’t even have a basement. Here’s a challenge for you: give me one quote from my earlier comment that quotes anyone other than Carl Sagan. My one mention of either Dawkins or Hitchens was that maybe you should familiarize yourself with the arguments they routinely refute, so you don’t have to hear them quoted so often. It so happens that my biggest influence in escaping the clutches of the church was Robert Ingersoll. Come back when you have something to say, rather than another short paragraph of stale, inaccurate insults.
        TL/DR: Get some new material, you dogfucking yeasty codpiece.

        • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

          You don’t understand; this guy tells every atheist to stop parroting Hitchens and Dawkins. He’s crazy and spams various atheist blogs. That’s why his comments went to moderation. My blog program considered him a spammer.

          • Nerdsamwich

            I figured as much. It can still be cathartic to vent at such easy targets, though.

  • Steve Willy

    You have, inadvertently, given me the empirical evidence I have been looking for to support my new proof for the existence of God: the argument from douche.
    P1: if a maximally douchy entity exists, there must some transendant, countervailing entity which embodies all that which in not douchy. Otherwise, douchiness would have overwhelmed the universe.
    P2: non-douchy things exist, such as Jesus, America, freedom, baseball, Ronald Reagan, etc.
    P3: a maximally douchy entity exists (proven by your last comment ).
    P4: maximal douchiness does not dominate the universe based on the existence of P2 + sunsets, babies, Chuck Norris, etc.
    P5: the transendant embodiment of maximal non-douchiness, which allows for existence of P2, must be spacess, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, in order to overcome the maximal douchiness of P3.
    That entity is what classical theists call God.
    Thanks again neck beard boy. In all your pseudo-intellectual, teenage angst ridden butthurt fury, you have proven the existence of God!