One of the standard tools of the evolution denial campaign is to claim improper persecution for one’s personal beliefs (“Expelled”). Mims has been relying on this one for (going on) several decades now, even using it in court. What makes opposing Mims’ assertions imperative is not, of course, a need to attack Mims, but the stated goal of the evolution denial campaign: Subverting the science education of the general public. Mims is a noted member of this campaign that uses misinformation and propaganda to lobby for laws and policies blocking good science education at the federal and state levels, as well as lobbying of individual schools and school districts. Despite setbacks in court, they continue to be increasingly successful at the local level, and gaining support from politicians.

Evolution denial is unique among the science denial of the far right (overpopulation denial, global warming denial, pollution denial, etc), in that it seeks to remove from the general population an understanding of an entire branch of science, biology, at a time when it is critical that the general population understand it. Yes, the other topics are also critical, but in order to remove evolution education science education as a whole is being subverted. It goes well beyond just denying some data on global warming, or oddly claiming that balancing population to available resources isn’t necessary for good quality of life. This is the reason that Scientific American was correct in not renewing Mims’ column, and why Discover is wrong for providing him with notoriety that he doesn’t deserve, and which could have gone to any number of deserving people instead. Both Scientific American and Discover have an obligation to the success of science education, and that is why Discover pretending that Mims’ activities with the Discovery Institute aren’t of any real concern is tragic.

Correspondence is not a research publication, and you will not find correspondence listed in a scientist’s CV. Data and experiments that are actually of interest to the field get published in a paper. There are several varieties of varying size, but they follow standards of scholarship.

No kidding. Especially with those early break-away sects that are hard to keep track of, and some of the doctrinal disputes at their hearts are difficult to grasp. It is amazing how worked up people got (and get) over such esoteric ideas. Interesting, though.

Never, though, say that the Catholic church was really the only Church before the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox really, really take issue with that idea. That said, in the West, you’re right. The Catholic Church was the only game in town in the West until the Reformation (save for transient groups like the Cathars, of course).

You’re quite right; I completely blew off the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Churches in the East that were (and are) not unified with the Eastern Orthodox (Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian… and probably some others). The history of religion is pretty complex.

That pretty much answers my question. You are completely ignorant of the formation and history of your religion. And you might want to be aware that the Catholic church as it is called is really the primary branch of Western Christendom that emerged as separate and distinct in the great schism between Eastern and Western Christendom that became final in the 11th century (prior to that, there was just “The Church” – the indivisible entity that encompassed all Christianity and grew from the apostles themselves . You might also want to realize that, from the stand point of the Eastern Orthodox, you are Catholic, as you a part of a splinter of a splinter of a splinter that splintered off from the Western Church.

And even if you are one of those who thinks that the Church went astray after Constantine made it the Imperial religion, you might want to recall that Constantine didn’t rule until the fourth century. Tertullian and Irenaeus were both late second and early third century Church fathers, both of whom greatly influenced the development of Christian thought (Irenaeus was one of the originators of the concept of the pre-Millenniumism, for instance). Apollonius was an early and highly regarded apologist and martyr (he was executed by the emperor Commodus in 192). They all lived, incidentally, before the Bible itself was assembled into its current form (in 382 during the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I), and likely influenced its final assembly.

You really don’t know this stuff? I’m not a Christian, nor even a religious scholar – I just find it interesting. It is not like it is hidden knowledge or anything, after all. There are plenty of books on all of it at any library. There is a great deal on the internet, as well. You might want to learn a bit about your religion before being so arrogant about it. After all, the history of a document can be greatly informing to the understanding of it. If nothing else, such knowledge can help a great deal in avoiding dogmatic false certainty and the evil that comes of that. For that matter, you should probably learn a bit about science before being so judgmental about science, those who accept it, or those who work in it. As it stands, you come across as among the least Christian people with whom I have ever interacted. Indeed, I almost suspect that you are really a strange, bitter atheist who is out to discredit fundamentalist Christianity.

again with the inellectual elitsim? really?

Again with your hypocritical religious elitism? Really?

i’m beginning to suspect that you truly beleive in that you are somehow more complete or superior

Dunno if I’m “superior”, but I certainly know more.

to those who have not had the educational opportunites that you its seems you have been blessed with.

You mean, like Google? On the Internet that you are using to post this very message?

Really, the internet is thick with seminaries, early Christian writings, different bible translations, theological archives and schools and… lots of stuff. You could, you know, look it up.

I may not be “superior”, but I’m sure as hell not as intellectually lazy as you are.

by “early church” i assume you are referring to the catholic church.

*shrug* While Roman Catholics like to claim that the church’s pedigree really does go back that far, it was not as unified as they claim.

i’m not catholic so, no, i can’t speak with any great detail about its founders, origins, theologies and popular saints.

*sigh* And where did you think your flavor of Christianity, whatever it is, came from? Before the Protestant Reformation, there was pretty much just the Catholic Church — and even Martin Luther (uh, you do know who Martin Luther was?) didn’t think that all of the early theologians were wrong. After the Reformation, well things got a bit messier. I’m guessing that your flavor of Christianity is one of the less historically inclined, though.

But not all Christians are as cut off from their past as you are. I mean, I was arguing with a Calvinist (uh, you do know who John Calvin was?) just the other day, and he did say that he agreed with Augustine.

i’m a Christian which is a pretty broad and loosely used term these days, applied to anything from mormonism to judasim.

Glk. Not by those who are actually Jewish, nor by those who actually know what Judaism is.

Sheesh.

i do not beleive the tenets of those faiths either.

Why not? Do you have any knowledge of what they are, and why they should be wrong, and yours right?

most catholics would call themselves christians, i’m sure, but the gospel of Christ and catholicism are two very different ideas. in fact, each one has nothing to do with the other at all.

You astound me with your ever more profound ignorance of religion in general.

i’m sure, even you would agree that one need not have a phd in religious studies in order to read, comprehend, and apply the bible. even us simple folk can do that much.

Ah, sola scriptura.

But that’s my point, once again: you’re certain that you need no other knowledge. You don’t care about other knowledge. How is your certainty in your tenets of faith different from what Tertullian wrote? Why on earth do you think he was “disparaging” Christians when you agree with his words, and assert that you need nothing else more than the bible?

By the way, you’re still quite wrong. Some of what you wrote is not in the bible. The first line, for example, the doctrine of Trinitarianism was picked up by some and was decided on over other interpretations at the Council of Nicaea , some 300 years after Jesus allegedly died. The third line is a bit iffy as well; it certainly does not appear in Genesis, although Paul pretty much insisted on it, and most, but not all, later Christians decided that Paul was right.

The eighth line is disputed by those who have a doctrine of predestination (such as Calvinists); again, it does not appear in the bible.

And the tenth line is, of course, ridiculous. The bible is not complete, otherwise you would not need doctrines and explanations external to the bible. And the bible is not inerrant, because it is full of statements that contradict itself, directly and indirectly, and statements that contradict, directly and indirectly, reality itself.

by “early church” i assume you are referring to the catholic church. i’m not catholic so, no, i can’t speak with any great detail about its founders, origins, theologies and popular saints. i’m a Christian which is a pretty broad and loosely used term these days, applied to anything from mormonism to judasim. i do not beleive the tenets of those faiths either. most catholics would call themselves christians, i’m sure, but the gospel of Christ and catholicism are two very different ideas. in fact, each one has nothing to do with the other at all. my core beliefs would be:

1. Father, Son, and Spirit are one God. There are no other gods.
2. God created man in His likeness for His pleasure. man being the creation is subject to God’s authority.
3. through adam sin entered the world and thereby all mankind is in bondage to sin.
4. God, being holy, can have no fellowship with sin or a sinner. the wages of sin are death – physical and spiritual.
5. God loves man so much that in mercy he provided that the judgment of sin be transferred from man to another vessel.
6. He sent His Son, Christ to die for us, in our place that we may have life eternal and no be seperated from God.
7. those who willingly aceept this sacrifice will be redeemed, their sins forgiven – those who reject Christ also reject their own salvation from the consequences of sin.
8. man has free will. the choice to accept or deny Christ is not forced.
9. whether redeemed or not, we will be judged according to our deeds by the Father.
10. the Bible plainly explains all of this in great detail. it is complete and inerrant and the actual Word of God, written by man, inspired by the Spirit.

i’m sure, even you would agree that one need not have a phd in religious studies in order to read, comprehend, and apply the bible. even us simple folk can do that much.

sorry, what questions of yours did i not answer?

I asked a lot of questions, and implied many more. Why don’t you start with the explicit ones, though?

was it the one about jerusalem and athens?

*Sigh.* I really thought you would have some basic familiarity with your own religion, at the very least. That one was a famous quote from Tertullian; more famous than the bit that I cited explicitly that comes after it, and he was being rhetorical, as was I. If you don’t know that, or what he meant by the question… then never mind. Just skip that one. Just forget it.

and its not necessary for me to defend God, Christ, or the Bible.

Then why are you even here? Almost everything you’ve been posting up until now has been an apology; an apology is a defense.

by the way, thanks for the snarky remark about being certain of my level of education. i always enjoy a little inetllectual elitism before bed.

Utter hypocrisy, from the one demonstrating religious elitism.

I am certain that you don’t know much about science, though, because you have demonstrated no knowledge of science, and plenty of ignorance.

was this terullian dude a christian? if he wasn’t he shouldn’t be speaking in the first person as if he were – sounds to me that maybe he didn’t like Christians. now why would someone say something disparaging about a group of people he didn’t particularly like? thats really bad manners. ditto that for augustine of hippo.

I really have no response to this. It’s like seeing an American not knowing who Thomas Jefferson was, or Alexander Hamilton, or Benjamin Franklin.

Uh, you do know who Paul of Tarsus, doubting Thomas, and Pilate were, yes? Are you aware that the bible was not originally in English?

Have you even read the bible, for that matter? Or do you just spout off about it?

and i was hoping for some possible answers to those questions from you fine gents.

Nonsense. You didn’t start off with honest questions; you started off with several rants about how evolution is just a lie and everyone deserves to burn in hell.

Tell you what, you retract those rants, and we’ll see what happens. Otherwise, we’re back to you putting religious dogma before everything else.

it would only be a false science if its conclusions contradict the fact that there is a Creator. otherwise it sounds like a good gig to have. by the way, thanks for the snarky remark about being certain of my level of education. i always enjoy a little inetllectual elitism before bed.

was this terullian dude a christian? if he wasn’t he shouldn’t be speaking in the first person as if he were – sounds to me that maybe he didn’t like Christians. now why would someone say something disparaging about a group of people he didn’t particularly like? thats really bad manners. ditto that for augustine of hippo.

mel – you are indeed correct. i’m not religious.

and i was hoping for some possible answers to those questions from you fine gents. afterall, it was you that i asked.

That’s a little like asking what the Christian position on tofu is. There is no such thing. You could, possibly, ask a large number of people from the group in question what THEIR position is on it, and if you received the same answer from a large number of people in the group, you might mistakenly think that you are getting “the” position of the group — but the group is defined by beliefs, and those beliefs do not have any relevance to the ‘group position’ you are trying in theory to ascertain.

Evolution is the explanation for how complex forms of life came from other, simpler forms of life. Are there scientific hypotheses for how the earliest, simplest forms of life came from non-life? Yes, there are, but those hypotheses are not part of the theory of evolution.

i noticed you sidestepped all of those questions.

And I noticed that you ignored all of my questions; you sidestepped every point that I raised about your religion.

That’s my point: You cannot discuss your religion rationally. Indeed, all you can do is make assertions, and ignore any questions or problems or contradictions that are pointed out about those assertions.

And I certainly cannot make science fit with your insane theology. All I can do is point at the evidence that exists, and that which can be inferred from current evidence, and the science that is being done to find the evidence that is still unknown. Such as for example, this:

  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

But how does my offering that link help? I’m certain that you don’t have the knowledge of organic chemistry to criticize it. All you can do is spout religious gibberish, like calling organic chemistry “false science” or “a lie – seeded in the minds of men by a vile creature”.

We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. — Tertullian

See? That’s your position, laid out proudly centuries ago. Even if I had the time and inclination to get down to the basics of science; of what is known and how it is that we know it, you simply do not really care. You just bring up questions about science so that you can smack down your ravings about what God wants, after ignoring everything said anyway.

The perspectives of non-Christians and atheists are treated quite well if you choose to look on the internet or in the library.

“what i’m unclear on is the evolutionist’s side of the debate. how exactly did life arise from non-life? ”

The question of the origin of life is still not settled. It is a large, and vibrant field of science that is still quite young. Does it have definitive answers yet? No, and it won’t for a very long while. Give it a few hundred years and come back if this is unsatisfactory to you.

What is becoming clear is that you are not really religious at all, but simply yet another typical fundamentalist who is utterly afraid of uncertainty. Maybe this is why you choose to so mock and demean your god with your conception of him/her/it.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
 — Augustine of Hippo

owlmirror, look, its pretty apparent that you’re an atheist.

Of course I’m an atheist. The only question, given the horror of the God you describe, is why you aren’t.

if a Creator has not given men the authority to govern other men – where does that authority come from and why should anyone be beholden to it? is there truly such things as good and evil? if there are, where in the animal kingdom is there basis for those things? are there such things as love, hope, compassion, empathy, and pride or are they just an anomaly of the human species – an evolution, if you will, of baser animal instincts? why do we see certain things as beautiful? why do we have a sense of humor and what is the purpose of laughter? why do we care for our injured and sick even when there is no possibility of recovery? why do we mourn for those lost to us? what makes us human?

What does that have to do with anything? Christianity’s answer, as given by you, is that none of it matters; that no love, hope, compassion, empathy, or pride make any difference whatsoever. Your religion is that there is no point to beauty, there is no point to laughter, there is no point to caring, there is no point to mourning. There is even no point to being human. There is only God’s will and God’s wants.

You claim that we are all equally evil; that God thinks that we all deserve eternal suffering. Your God hates us with such a cruel passion that he insists that we all suffer eternal agony, no matter how much love, hope, compassion, empathy, or pride we may have; no matter how much we may appreciate beauty or laugh, or care for other humans, or mourn their loss … unless we jump through God’s moronic hoop, and call being forced to jump through that hoop “love”.

No.

I think there are answers to those questions; I think it is possible to discuss them and come to a greater understanding of the answers, or the potential for answers. But it is not possible to discuss them with someone utterly steeped in dogma; with someone whose only answer is “God wants it that way, and oh, by the way, God will torture you after you die forever unless you believe this particular stupid and utterly contradictory thing about God.”

What, indeed, has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

Then you aren’t listening or reading, are you? Another mark of your arrogance and pride.

and yeah, they ask the questions. i’m not hearing any answers, though.

Such arrogance and ignorance – a poisonous brew. Jason, you have shamed the name of Christianity with your haughtiness and overweening pride uninformed by thought or knowledge.

As to the questions you posed in the previous paragraph, what makes you think atheists and agnostics don’t ask those questions? Is it not possible that it people can ask those questions and reach far different conclusions than you, or are you so arrogant you cannot imagine views other than yours?

Antaeus Feldspar, I am glad you are out there to be a religious person to stand as an example to those who make the mistake of thinking that all religious individuals are like Jason.

owlmirror, look, its pretty apparent that you’re an atheist. most atheists that i’ve encountered and have talked with are intellectuals that are usually employed in either a field of science or medicine or have careers in academia – usually in a tenured position. interestingly, almost all of them have a similar viewpoint as yourself. they also all have trouble answering the questions i posed at the end of my last comment. what’s the significance of your life compared to, let’s say, a chimpanzee’s life. if you’re both animals at different points along the evolutionary time line – aren’t both lives of equal value. if they’re not – why? if a Creator has not given men the authority to govern other men – where does that authority come from and why should anyone be beholden to it? is there truly such things as good and evil? if there are, where in the animal kingdom is there basis for those things? are there such things as love, hope, compassion, empathy, and pride or are they just an anomaly of the human species – an evolution, if you will, of baser animal instincts?
why do we see certain things as beautiful? why do we have a sense of humor and what is the purpose of laughter? why do we care for our injured and sick even when there is no possibility of recovery? why do we mourn for those lost to us? what makes us human?

well, because roughly a kajillion years ago the matter and elements of the universe, (gee, where did that stuff come from? never you mind that) by sheer random chance, combined and aligned itself just so with a mixture of just the right amount of chemicals in a primordial sludge and then something happened (don’t ask what exactly but something) and then there was life. oh, and by the way, instead of being snuffed out within a couple of minutes or hours or days in an extremely hostile environment, it survived…..oh, and then, wonder of wonders, was able to completely replicate itself and flourish. and theeeeen, over the course of the next one hundred zillion years, again by sheer, random, fantastically improbable (but not impossible, no way jose) chance it slowly evolved into……well, would you believe every last life form on earth?

why didn’t i think of that?!

angels are, like us, free-willed sentient beings that serve God in different capacities. a portion of the angels rebelled against God, very foolishly i might add, for unlike us, they have no hope in salvation. before man sinned, the lake of fire, or what some may refer to as “hell”, was created and reserved solely for them. their dissent was a free-willed, conscious decision, individually made by each angel.

And where in the bible does it say that? Oh? It doesn’t say it anywhere? So it’s just a story made up by people after the bible was written? OK, then. By all means, make up more fairytales to add on to the written fairytale.

God is no more immoral for their creation than a mother would be for giving birth to a an individual who eventually goes on to commit heinous crimes.

The mother is innocent precisely because she would have no knowledge of what her putative evil child would become, nor presumably, be able to prevent the child from acting. If she did know, and was able to prevent the individual from acting yet did not do so, then she is complicit in the heinous crimes, and thus, immoral.

Are you saying that God had no knowledge of what the angels would do? Are you saying that God was completely incapable of preventing them from acting? Are you denying here and now that God is all-knowing and all-powerful?

the scripture tells us that the wages of sin are death. it also tells us that all have sinned. therefore, your just and deserved recompense is to die.

The words of a tyrant, in other words. Just like Stalin saying “Everyone deserves to die”. Or the actual words of the Khmer Rouge: “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”

but the Bible states that even though death is inevitable, God’s gift to you is eternal life if you accept it.

Just like Stalin saying “Oh, but I’ll let you live… with certain conditions…”

at the time of the flood, scripture states that there were no righteous people except one.

And that included all the women (pregnant and not) and children, of course. What, the babies were crying too loudly? The fetuses were kicking too hard? What the hell is an entire population doing such that every single one of them, down to the unborn infants, are all not “righteous”?

i might point out that the pharaoh had many opportunities to spare his people God’s judgment but in his pride, he defied God even though he could directly see the effect on his lands and kinsman.

WRONG! I guess you don’t know your own bible. Pharaoh defied God because God forced him to defy God. “The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh”

So much for free will.

And that does not explain or excuse the deaths of the firstborn; infants and children.

man does not speak for God. so why doesn’t God speak directly to us? He did, actually. [...] He speaks to us even today through His holy word, the Bible.

So that makes sense to you? “Speaking” is exactly the same as fixed words in a 2000-year-old book in a different language? Why then does anyone even bother to use words, sentences and paragraphs that aren’t in the bible?

Why do you use words, sentences and paragraphs that aren’t in the bible?

physical death, eternal separation from God and exile in the lake of fire is the end judgment for those who have sinned. that is what is just and deserved

Just like Stalin/Pol Pot saying that everyone who does not embrace Bolshevism/Maoism deserves to be tortured to death, and then tortured forever after that.

Your idea of “just” and “deserved” are exactly like that of the greatest butchers in the world.

God, because His love for you and i is so powerful and unerring, provided an alternative. instead of us, He sent His only Son to die in our stead.

No, he didn’t. Death is permanent. Unless Jesus died forever, he did not actually die. By your own mythology, God brought Jesus back to life. So Jesus did not die.

that sacrifice must be acknowledged and accepted on an individual basis for the redemption to be counted. Christ said that anyone who denies Him before man, He will deny them before His Father.

That doesn’t sound like “love” to me. It sounds like Stalin/Pol Pot telling people to accept Bolshevism/Maoism … or be tortured forever by the secret police.

death is the payment demanded by God for sin. however, he can punish individuals for their continued and unrepentant sins by means other than death. there are many examples in scripture of righteous and unrighteous men being rebuked by God and not slain outright.

death is the payment demanded by Stalin for not being Bolshevist. however, he can punish individuals for their continued and unrepentant “sins” by means other than death. there are many examples in history of righteous and unrighteous men being sent to the Gulag by Stalin and not slain outright.

Why would “righteous” men be rebuked? Maybe because God is just as evil as Stalin?

what do you suppose happens after death? oblivion?

Better oblivion than an eternity of groveling before a cruel and evil tyrant.

God created lucifer – an angel – the same as he created man. angels are, like us, free-willed sentient beings that serve God in different capacities. a portion of the angels rebelled against God, very foolishly i might add, for unlike us, they have no hope in salvation. before man sinned, the lake of fire, or what some may refer to as “hell”, was created and reserved solely for them. their dissent was a free-willed, conscious decision, individually made by each angel. God is no more immoral for their creation than a mother would be for giving birth to a an individual who eventually goes on to commit heinous crimes.

the scripture tells us that the wages of sin are death. it also tells us that all have sinned. therefore, your just and deserved recompense is to die. scripture also tells us that tomorrow is not guaranteed – death may happen at any age. that sounds harsh to those who have no hope for anything after their time here ceases but the Bible states that even though death is inevitable, God’s gift to you is eternal life if you accept it.
at the time of the flood, scripture states that there were no righteous people except one. He sent the flood waters to destroy these ungodly people and saved the one righteous man and his family that they might start again anew.
in egypt, God, in his mercy, did provide that whomever had the blood of a lamb (a glimpse of things to come) on the doors of their home would be spared the visit of the angel of death. even an egyptian home. i might point out that the pharaoh had many opportunities to spare his people God’s judgment but in his pride, he defied God even though he could directly see the effect on his lands and kinsman.

man does not speak for God. so why doesn’t God speak directly to us? He did, actually. God became human in Jesus Christ who was sent by his Father, the Almighty. He spoke to many, many people, taught men the will of God, performed miracles, healed the sick, and even returned the dead to life. there were a great deal, though, that even after witnessing first hand the power and majesty of the King, still rejected Him. He speaks to us even today through His holy word, the Bible.

physical death, eternal separation from God and exile in the lake of fire is the end judgment for those who have sinned. that is what is just and deserved. that was not what was intended, though. that place was originally reserved for lucifer and the other angels who rebelled against God. man, however, made the choice to sin and now the judgment for that awaits. but, God, because His love for you and i is so powerful and unerring, provided an alternative. instead of us, He sent His only Son to die in our stead. that sacrifice must be acknowledged and accepted on an individual basis for the redemption to be counted. Christ said that anyone who denies Him before man, He will deny them before His Father.

death is the payment demanded by God for sin. however, he can punish individuals for their continued and unrepentant sins by means other than death. there are many examples in scripture of righteous and unrighteous men being rebuked by God and not slain outright.

a question, and then i’ll leave you all to yourselves – well, maybe… depending on your responses. what do you suppose happens after death? oblivion? it would be hard to imagine that’s not what you’d expect if there is no God. i personally find that hard to visualize and i would imagine most people that have given thought to it would agree. scripture says that God has set eternity in the hearts of man. i’m not saying that that’s the proof God exists. There is no definitive proof of that because if there were, well, lets face it, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. we’d all be at Bible study discussing His glory over coffee. i know, i know… “if only it were true!” is what you’re thinking, right? i kid, i kid. but seriously, lets say, that nothingness is what awaits us. what then is the purpose of life? to take what pleasure you may in the the short span you have and procreate so that future generations can do the same? let’s say you give the “to sacrifice and serve mankind and live the best life you can” answer – which, by the way, i’m not mocking. if that’s what you truly think, that would be very honorable and noble. but, in the vast and endless march of time, what makes that any better or worse than the person who says “i’m out for me and me only”? imagine the world one hundred billion years in the future when, as some scientists say, all life on this world has been snuffed out and has been for some time. what significance were your years compared to the billions that have come and gone since then. what lasting impact was your life in this universe that will supposedly collapse back in on itself in another umpteen gazillion years. i’m interested to hear your answers.

there can be no denial, however.

Why not?

the Almighty is as real as the ground you walk on.

Nonsense. I can see, feel, smell, even taste and hear the ground (if I walk loudly enough). Where is “the Almighty”, that I can perceive him and test him for his alleged attributes? Oh, right, Scripture says no testing God. Well, then you lied when you said that the Almighty is as real as the ground we walk on.

I promise you its nothing more than a lie – seeded in the minds of men by a vile creature that has had millennia to perfect this deception with the sole purpose of keeping you from the path the Almighty has set for you from before your conception.

Uh-huh. And who created this vile creature whose sole purpose is to allegedly keep us from the path that the Almighty has allegedly set for us?

Who but the Almighty himself?

That is one reason why the “Almighty” is immoral, if he were even real: With one hand he giveth, and makes damned sure to take away with the other.

in what part of my comment did i describe a “vindictive and immoral” god?

The traits of vindictiveness and immorality are inferred from Scripture. Think of some human tyrant; theists like to point at Josef Stalin. Given that you know that Stalin had millions killed without trial because they objected to his dictates, including women and children, would it not be correct and accurate to describe him as vindictive and immoral?

Given that it is claimed that God personally killed millions in the flood, and killed some unknown but very large number of children in Egypt, and ordered the killings of thousands more, including the deaths of small children, would it not be correct and accurate to describe him as vindictive and immoral?

Given that it is claimed that God will torture for all eternity the moral non-Christians, and even those moral Christians who fail to worship him in exactly the right way, exactly the same as someone as genuinely immoral as Stalin, would it not be correct and accurate to describe God as vindictive and immoral?

This is the One who created the universe and everything contained in it.

So it is claimed. Why can’t “the One” speak for himself? Why does he need weak and imperfect sinners, whose judgment is clouded by this “vile creature” (who he also created!) to speak for him, to us, whose judgment is also clouded by this “vile creature”?

He alone is worthy to judge and He is perfectly just.

So you say. Where is God, to say for himself what is just and what is not?

Sin, believe it or not, carries consequences. Of course he will punish us for being sinners just as a parent would rebuke a child that has done something he or she knows they shouldn’t have.

A “rebuke” assumes the possibility that the child can change their behavior. What change is possible after death? And as noted above, the child’s misbehavior is because of something that the parent knowingly put in place to deceive the child.

Does the child say that the parent is then not worthy of love and respect because they were punished?

If the punishment is excessive and eternal, then damned right the parent is not worthy of love and respect.

And if the parent created the cause of the misbehavior, then damned right the parent is not worthy of love and respect.

And if the parent does not speak for himself, then damned right the parent is not worthy of love and respect.