As Twitchy reported, actor Matthew McConaughey won hearts with his acceptance speech for his Best Actor win at Sunday night’s Academy Awards. The actor thanked God in his faith-filled speech.

MTV host and “Real World: Brooklyn” alum Chet Cannon noticed a little something about the crowd reaction.

https://twitter.com/Chet_Cannon/status/440350369051189248

Unreal.

So there’s that.

https://twitter.com/camilaci25/status/440353818924949504

Sad indeed.

This Twitter user sums it up:

Amen. Although, it is also sad that speaking of your faith must now be an act of bravery.

Related:

Matthew McConaughey rattles Oscar crowd, wins hearts by thanking God 

  • http://macsen573.wix.com/overdrive Macsen Overdrive

    I didn’t watch the Oscars, but when I heard McConaughey had done that, I knew the reaction at the venue would be tepid.

    • nc ✓s & balances

      No need. Just watch MM and Jared Leto’s speeches, and you’re good to go!

    • trixiewoobeans

      That herd of sheep will react whichever way they’re told the wind is blowing.

      • sompopo

        The same way theist do!

        • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

          I’m a theist….

          Please convince me I’m just a sheep following the wind….

          • Hot_wings

            I see what you did there.

          • Lucas Bluecat

            All you need is your holy word. Follow that.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. It contains all that is essential for faith and practice to be sure, but to thoroughly understand it, one needs to be a man of many books. It’s written in a different place, culture, language, and time than we are and it is in fact written in a high-context society which assumes a familiarity with the background culture, unlike our low-context society in America which assumes ignorance of the culture.

            To understand the Bible thoroughly, one needs to be interacting with the best scholarship on the issue, and that includes scholarship on all sides. Liberal and conservative. Christian and non-Christian. Etc.

          • really?

            hahahahahaha

          • moi2u

            No. To thoroughly understand it, all you need is the companionship of The Holy Spirit as you read, Nick. Scholarship may give you cultural context, but not understanding of The Word and that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1, and “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14. and “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. Only the Holy Spirit of the Divine can help you understand this and reveal the truth of it to your soul.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            And what will happen? When two disagree, each person will claim the Holy Spirit is telling them the truth. This is how cults get started. I’m not going to be so arrogant as to think the Holy Spirit has never guided people past and present in understanding Scripture and I will seek to learn from them constantly.

          • pall2027

            yeah! please please please do keep seeking. I hope you will find the truth one day…that there’s no Ghost !

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Well geez, do you have an argument to go with that? I mean, I don’t take statements of faith just like that. I need a case made with evidence. Please try to present it rather than just giving a rant.

          • Rab Simpson

            You’re a theist and you’re saying you don’t just take statements on faith? You need a case made with evidence?

            You do realise that there’s zero evidence supporting claims of the existence of any deity ever mentioned by anyone since humanity first learned how to speak, don’t you?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Yes. I need a case made with evidence unlike the numerous atheists i read who make statements about what faith is but never bother going to a Lexicon to provide evidence.

            I’ll stick with the arguments of Aquinas, namely the first one, and the resurrection of Jesus as evidence.

            Now please, go ahead and demonstrate to me you’ve read no scholarship on either of those.

          • Rab Simpson

            There’s zero evidence supporting the existence of the ‘jesus’ character as an actual person, so your ‘evidence’ of a resurrection is null and void. The arguments of Thomas Aquinas don’t provide anything solid either.

            If you’d like to present some actual evidence which stands up to the scrutiny of even the most uptight scientists, I’d love to see it. I’m perfectly willing to alter my position based on new evidence.

            While you’re at it, would you also like to define ‘faith’ in this context?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            YOu might as well go to a geologists convention and say there’s zero evidence that the Earth is round. It’s that much of a joke. Even atheistic and liberal NT scholars don’t treat the Christ-myth seriously.

            For reasons why, see works like Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” or Robert Van Voorst’s “Jesus Outside the New Testament.”

            I’m sure you’ll point to Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Do you know of any of their works that have passed peer-review in academic journals on the Christ-myth? Do you know what accredited universities they teach at?

            There’s a reason for that.

            You say Aquinas isn’t solid. Well I need an argument for that.

            As for scientists, why should I assume that an argument to be valid must be scientific and thus meet the standards of science? My argument is metaphysical.

            My definition of faith. Sure. I’ll also use a scholarly source, something new atheists don’t do.

            Faith/Faithfulness

            “These terms refer to the value of
            reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and
            qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal
            relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal
            faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well
            as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that
            binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally
            rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it
            works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and
            the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p.
            72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

          • Rab Simpson

            “YOu might as well go to a geologists convention and say there’s zero evidence that the Earth is round. It’s that much of a joke. Even atheistic and liberal NT scholars don’t treat the Christ-myth seriously.

            For reasons why, see works like Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” or Robert Van Voorst’s “Jesus Outside the New Testament.”

            I’m sure you’ll point to Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Do you know of any of their works that have passed peer-review in academic journals on the Christ-myth? Do you know what accredited universities they teach at?

            There’s a reason for that.”

            And yet I still see no evidence. I don’t care what other people said or other arguments have been made. I want you to present the evidence which convinced you that the claim was factual, and no, the bible doesn’t qualify due to it being the claim itself.

            “You say Aquinas isn’t solid. Well I need an argument for that.”

            Here’s one: you can argue until you’re blue in the face, if you don’t have any actual evidence to back up your claims there’s no reason for a reasonable person to accept them as true.

            I’ve been asking theists for this stuff for years and not once have any of you been able to show me anything beyond what someone else who also wasn’t there once said. None of you have ever given me any good reason to accept what you claim to be true as actual demonstrable truth.

            “As for scientists, why should I assume that an argument to be valid must be scientific and thus meet the standards of science?”

            Can you name a higher level of scrutiny? If what you claim is true it would stand up to any scrutiny. If it doesn’t meet the demands of science the likeliness of it being reality is pretty slim.

            “My argument is metaphysical.”

            Based on flights of fancy then. Congratulations, you’re hunting for your own personal confirmation bias.

            “Sure. I’ll also use a scholarly source, something new atheists don’t do.”

            Nice little ad hominem there.

            That definition could easily have been cut down to a single word: ‘trust’ (all the talk of love and hope however serve only to muddy the waters)

            So you trust that the claims made in the bible are true. Based on what?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            In comes Rab with his Jesus allergy!

            Rab: And yet I still see no evidence. I don’t care what other people said or other arguments have been made. I want you to present the evidence which convinced you that the claim was factual, and no, the bible doesn’t qualify due to it being the claim itself.

            Reply: Yes. I know you don’t care what bona fide scholars and historians think. It’s good to know that you in your atheistic humility think you know better than all of them without doing real study on the topic. Okay. Well let’s name some names.

            Tacitus, Josephus, Seutonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Pliny the Younger, Lucian….

            All of these testify to the existence of a historical Jesus.

            “With
            respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the
            sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that
            originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just
            a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in
            droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient
            figure of any kind.”

            Bart
            Ehrman

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

            If historians want to know what Jesus said and
            did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their
            principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or
            theological reasons–for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted.
            It is for historical reasons pure and simple. Ehrman, The New Testament, page
            215)

            Rab: Here’s one: you can argue until you’re blue in the face, if you don’t have any actual evidence to back up your claims there’s no reason for a reasonable person to accept them as true.

            Reply: But this isn’t a reason. Aquinas’s argument is a philosophical argument with premises and a conclusion based on those. It’s a deductive argument. You need to show either some way his reasoning is invalid or you need to demonstrate that a premise is false. Until that is done, the argument stands.

            Rab: I’ve been asking theists for this stuff for years and not once have any of you been able to show me anything beyond what someone else who also wasn’t there once said. None of you have ever given me any good reason to accept what you claim to be true as actual demonstrable truth.

            Reply: Someone who wasn’t there. Well geez. Good to know you’ve taken the favorite argument of the young-earth creationist crowd. I prefer for history to go to actual scholars. Sorry to hear that you don’t.

            Rab: Can you name a higher level of scrutiny? If what you claim is true it would stand up to any scrutiny. If it doesn’t meet the demands of science the likeliness of it being reality is pretty slim.

            Reply: Yes. Deductive logic for instance. Mathematics is another field. Francis Bacon showed long ago that doing science is inductive which means that it can only speak in generalities and not in absolutes. Science is great if you want to understand the material world, but not so great for everything else.

            Rab: Based on flights of fancy then. Congratulations, you’re hunting for your own personal confirmation bias.

            Reply: YOu could demonstrate this by defining what metaphysics is.

            Rab: Nice little ad hominem there.

            Reply: No. An ad hominem is an insult in lieu of an argument. I have pointed out already that atheists do not go to scholarly sources in looking up the meaning of the word faith, which is pistis in Greek. The statement is a statement of fact then.

            Rab: That definition could easily have been cut down to a single word: ‘trust’ (all the talk of love and hope however serve only to muddy the waters)

            So you trust that the claims made in the bible are true. Based on what?

            Reply: Based on the work of leading scholars in the field such as those of archaeology and ancient history. Yes. I actually read them and talk to them.

            When was the last time you read a biblical scholar that disagreed with you?

          • Rab Simpson

            “Yes. I know you don’t care what bona fide scholars and historians think. It’s good to know that you in your atheistic humility think you know better than all of them without doing real study on the topic. Okay. Well let’s name some names.

            Tacitus, Josephus, Seutonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Pliny the Younger, Lucian….

            All of these testify to the existence of a historical Jesus.”

            You know what fallacious appeal to authority means, don’t you?

            If you’re going to continue down this tiresome route, I’ve got better things to do with my time.

            Intellectual honesty is a good thing, you might want to try it and avoid confirmation bias and fallacies next time.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Yes. I’m citing what happened in ancient history and I appealed to ancient historians!

            Oh my! I should have instead appealed to people in Hollywood! That would have made more sense!

            THis is why it’s a waste of time to talk to Christ-mythers. They’re immune to reason of any sort.

          • Rab Simpson

            Now you’ve got the problem of whether these historians were A) honest and their words are based on actual discoveries, B) christians who let their beliefs get in the way of their work and fell for confirmation bias, or C) had their works forged by dishonest christians at a later date.

            How do you account for any of that?

            Also, given the number of exclamation marks you’re using you might want to calm down before you give yourself a coronary. Exploding like Alex Jones won’t add any credibility to your words.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            A) A historian works with giving the ancient writer the benefit of the doubt. Tacitus is seen as our greatest Roman historian. Do you have a reason why I should discount his testimony?

            B) Tacitus was no Christian. He despised Christianity in fact. His comments in the Annals show a disdain for Christianity entirely.

            C) There is no evidence that the passage in Tacitus is an interpolation. It is in fact not the kind of statement Christians would make.

            And no, I only give exclamation points because you make me laugh so much. Fundy atheists have that effect on me.

          • Rab Simpson

            “A historian works with giving the ancient writer the benefit of the doubt.”

            And there we have it. No evidence, just the benefit of the doubt and a fallacious appeal to authority and you’re happy to believe it. Congratulations, you have no standard for evidence whatsoever if a claim supports your own personal prejudice. You’re about as intellectually honest as your average Texas governor.

            “And no, I only give exclamation points because you make me laugh so much.”

            You might want to consult a psychiatrist.

            “Fundy atheists have that effect on me.”

            You do realise there’s no such thing, right? You’re either an atheist or you’re not. You either accept ridiculous claims about an invisible man in the sky or you don’t. There’s no grey areas and there are certainly no extremes, unlike amongst those who want to destroy the rights of other people because the contents of a book which has been edited millions of times and released in thousands of different editions supporting thousands of DIFFERENT sects of the same cult has a line in it about how you should treat certain people with malice because a so called loving imaginary tyrant thinks that killing people is a good thing.

            Keep drinking that kool aid.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Rab: And there we have it. No evidence, just the benefit of the doubt and a fallacious appeal to authority and you’re happy to believe it. Congratulations, you have no standard for evidence whatsoever if a claim supports your own personal prejudice. You’re about as intellectually honest as your average Texas governor.

            Reply: Or we could try it your way. We just won’t accept any claim until we find it to be absolutely proven in ancient history. You know how many events in history we have only one eyewitness to? There are several of them. If we took your kind of skepticism with ancient history, we wouldn’t know anything about it.

            And actually, I do know history. My area of study is history and I have talked with leading scholars who are historians about how to do history. Who did you consult?

            Rab: You might want to consult a psychiatrist.

            Reply: No. I just find extreme ignorance funny on the part of people who claim to be rational because they’re atheists.

            Rab: You do realise there’s no such thing, right?

            Reply: Oh no. They exist alright and they have much in common with fundamentalist Christians.

            Both insist that the Bible must be taken absolutely literally.
            Both insist that the Bible is an all-or-nothing game. It’s either all true or all false.
            Both are absolute with the Bible. For one, everything in it is true. For the other, everything in it is false.
            Both are adverse to reading any scholarship that disagrees with them.
            Both think that you go by just faith in believing the Bible.
            Both have a hyper-skepticism on what disagrees with them.

            The mindset is the same. It’s only the loyalty that differs.

            To demonstrate it, just find the professional historian who teaches at an accredited university and has passed peer-review in a prestigious academic journal that says Jesus never existed. Go ahead. Find one.

            Rab: You’re either an atheist or you’re not. You either accept ridiculous claims about an invisible man in the sky or you don’t.

            Reply: Speaking about God as an invisible man in the sky is a ridiculous claim. It certainly lacks the intellectual rigor of philosophy of the past.

            Rab: There’s no grey areas and there are certainly no extremes, unlike amongst those who want to destroy the rights of other people because the contents of a book which has been edited millions of times and released in thousands of different editions

            Reply: Let me guess how many scholars you’ve read on textual criticism? Probably none, save perhaps Bart Ehrman since he agrees with you. If you want to discuss textual criticism and how we can be sure we have the NT as it was written today, I’m game, but until then, let me leave you with the words of one scholar on textual criticism.

            “If the primary purpose of this discipline is to
            get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory,
            depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we’re not going to get much
            closer to the original text than we already are.… At this stage, our work on
            the original amounts to little more than tinkering. There’s something about
            historical scholarship that refuses to concede that a major task has been
            accomplished, but there it is ”

            “In spite of these remarkable [textual]
            differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words
            of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent)
            accuracy.”

            Who said these quotes?

            Well it was Bart Ehrman.

            The first can be found here: Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior:
            An Evaluation: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998, a revision of
            a paper presented at the Textual Criticism section of the 1997 Society of
            Biblical Literature in San Francisco.
            http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Ehrman1998.html

            The second can be found here: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to
            the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University
            Press, 2003), 481.

            Rab: supporting thousands of DIFFERENT sects of the same cult has a line in it about how you should treat certain people with malice because a so called loving imaginary tyrant thinks that killing people is a good thing.

            Reply: Thousands of different sects. Yet another claim that has no research. Tell me, on the source that is cited for this, can you define what it means by a sect or denomination?

            Good to know also your reason is an emotional one. I think Islam does terrible things, but my reason for rejecting Islam is not those. My reason is the historical case for Muhammad being a prophet is poor.

            Rab: Keep drinking that kool aid.

            Reply: You mean reading bona fide scholarship instead of just internet atheists who agree with me. Right?

          • Rab Simpson

            “Or we could try it your way. We just won’t accept any claim until we find it to be absolutely proven in ancient history.”

            Fine by me. My position still stands as the only intellectually honest one in this conversation, I’m not claiming that any magic men or demigods or deities have ever existed, all I’ve ever said is that I’m not convinced that they have.

            The rest of your comment is a waste of eyeball movement.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            It’s amazing the level of skepticism one must have in order to avoid admitting a historical Jesus even. You have to be willing to throw out all of ancient history with a ridiculous standard that not one single scholar of ancient history holds.

          • Rab Simpson

            That confirmation bias is really going to town on you, isn’t it?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Confirmation bias is an excuse given when people cannot deal with the data such as leading scholarship. But go ahead, presume you know better than all the scholars and enjoy the ignorance.

          • Rab Simpson

            No, confirmation bias is jumping to a conclusion based on preconceived notions and using top-down reasoning.

            You’ve started off with a premise (this magic man you believe in was a real person) and you’re happy to take anything which even hints at the prospect of that premise being true and accept it as fact without properly scrutinising it and determining the actual historicity of the claim.

            This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Let’s see. I can believe you or I can believe 4,000 years of faith and tradition. I’m going with the 4,000 years thing. You might want to give it a try.

          • Bill

            Funny thing. For thousands of years, there was a faith and tradition that men had one less rib than women do. Turns out, it is baloney.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            Sorry and I know you won’t agree but your post is exactly why the people at the Oscars didn’t clap. I sincerely believe that most people could believe in God, they are just put off by religion. I grew up with a religion pushed in my face, I still love God and try my best to live my life in the way The Christ taught us. I cringe,however, when I hear someone start quoting scripture as a means to win an argument. Most people I experienced used scripture as a weapon and not a means to grow their soul. FYI you tend to turn people off when you quote line after line of scripture no matter how well meaning you are.

          • mikemazzla

            Although I appreciate what you are saying and would hope most religious people think that way…we dont believe in god simply because he doesn’t exist..not for any other reason.

          • Evelyn Glover

            It’s too bad you choose to meet God after you die. One second after your heart stops beating you’ll know if you have chosen wisely.

          • mikemazzla

            Basically that is a totally made up thing you just wrote lol… I wont know anything because I will be dead. You know it is like when you fall asleep..you don’t know when you fall asleep..you just do.. the only difference is that when you die your brain is no longer functioning either..

          • Evelyn Glover

            That’s what is called faith. You know the wind is blowing but you can’t see the actual wind. I have had too many answered prayers for me to not believe that my God is real. I feel sorry for people like you who wouldn’t believe if you were to meet Jesus face to face. The bible says that not all will be saved and I guess you are one of them. I have and will always put my trust in Him, not man. Man will fail you, God won’t.

          • Bill

            The bible also gives clear instructions on how to treat slaves, and how slaves should be respectful to their masters.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            And in doing so, it began the immediate undermining of the system. It condemns slave traders for instance and says runaways should not be returned to their masters. It was because of Christianity that the institution originally fell.

          • Bill

            I think you must be reading a very different version of the bible.

            “A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the master.” — Matthew 10:24
            “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” — 1 Peter 2:18
            “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” — Colossians 3:22

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Oh I know those passages. Funny how much is left out.

            For instance, Matthew 10 is certainly true in the social situation of the time. Teachers and masters would be at a higher honor position. Jesus was referring to a simple reality of the time. It does not mean he approved of the system.

            For 1 Peter, Peter is writing to those who are in slavery in part and telling them to have proper attitudes in working. Would you have preferred he said to take up arms and start a rebellion? That would have made the Christian movement a political movement and removed its real focus.

            For Colossians, Paul has in 4:1 strong words for masters as well. The idea that they had a master in Heaven was the start of the end to favoritism and the eventual abolition of slavery.

          • Bill

            So Jesus changed his mind? What was ok at that time is not ok now?
            Sorry, it was wrong then and is wrong now. I don’t accept that.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            That would work if I had ever made such an argument.

          • Bill

            “True in the social situation of the time”
            So either the bible is not true, or it is true. Or perhaps it is no longer true. God changed his mind, or the bible is completely irrelevant.
            While it may have been true that slavery was acceptable in that time (according to the word of a Christian god), it is not moral and it never was.
            Perhaps what you elude to is that right and wrong during an era is dictated by society, and not a god? That much I agree with.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. It could be that slavery is immoral, which it is, and in the social situation a slave was not above his master on an honor level. Both can be true. The thing with slavery is that it could not be the Christian focus. Otherwise, it would have been a movement built on really destroying the society in that way as slavery was a staple at the time. It took years to raise up the dignity of man through Christian teaching to get to the point where more and more realized this went against morality.

          • Bill

            That is an interesting hypothesis, but it is quite a leap to think it was Christianity that raised up the dignity of man to eliminate slavery. I don’t think that was truly the case. What can be said is that slavery was sanctioned and very popular during the time that the various scriptures were written. That is enough for me to realize that I need to look to more modern scholars for enlightenment.
            I believe the bible was wrong. I believe that man has evolved socially to a point that the bible should be finally put away for good.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, it’s not a hypothesis. It’s a demonstrable fact of history. Consider that it was the church first teaching the message that slavery needed to be abandoned. Now it wouldn’t be abandoned immediately in the ancient world. It was a staple. In Jewish society for instance, that was how the poor made their living. They had to work for someone. It was closer to what we call the employer/employee relationship. What got people to the idea that slavery was wrong were a number of claims.

            #1-Humans are intrinsically good based on what they are.

            #2-Since Christ set us free from the slavery of sin, we ought to set others free from other forms of slavery.

            #3-All people are in the image of God.

            #4-Texts like Galatians 3:28.

            This came to a head first with Bathilda, the wise of Clovis II who was a former slave herself and led to the destruction of slavery. Before that, people in the church would often buy slaves en masse simply for the purpose of setting them free. When the Pope found out slave trading was going on amongst some members of the church, he immediately issued a bull decrying it and demanding that slaves be released and that the buyers not be given back any money that they spent.

            Oh. If you want to say mankind has evolved to the point that we can be good on our own, all I can say to that is look at the 20th century, which was what Nietzsche predicted, the bloodiest century of all. How many people died in Communist Russia? How many under Pol-Pot? What about the Khmer Rouge which was following the philosophy of Sartre? How many more school shootings do we have going on? How many STDs are there?

            Besides this, you still need an ontological foundation for goodness in an atheistic universe.

            Might I also suggest that rather than tie up Twitchy, that you come to my section at TheologyWeb.com called “Deeper Waters” for better debate? The format here isn’t even the best really.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Ted, so yourself a favor and read on how William Wilberforce’s Christian faith kept him in the fight for 18 years until Parliament finally abolished England’s role in the slave trade. Christianity did, indeed, bring an end to slavery. Question: What religions dominate in the countries where slavery is still condoned?

          • Bill

            Humans brought an end to slavery. Some of them were Christians, and some of them were not. To say that it is Christianity that ended it is wishful thinking. Many Christians supported slavery. When society changed and it no longer became acceptable, slavery ended in the USA. That is not Christianity, that is humanism.

          • Bill

            I will certainly look up that book, however. I do enjoy reading many books, Christian and non-Christian alike.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Yes, it does. People held slaves then. It also gives clear instructions on how men should love their wives and wives should respect their husbands. That doesn’t happen much anymore, either.

          • Bill

            Yes, and of course the old testament gives clear instructions on stoning women who are raped. The book can certainly be a way to illustrate what people believed at the time. But it was anything but moral.
            One question I have for this omniscient and omnipotent god that seems to dictate morality is: Why not just command people not to have slaves?
            “God works in mysterious ways”

          • DevilDog Ding

            There is that pesky New Testament in which Jesus stopped a mob of religious people from stoning an adulteress simply by reminding them that they are as morally corrupt as the one they condemned.

            You ever wonder what Jesus wrote in the sand before he saved the adulteress?

            God doesn’t dictate morality. He gave his crown of creation moral agency. Right out of the box, they broke the one rule He gave them. God then gave them laws, but man, being fallen, cannot keep His laws. But, you know, God loves us little buggers so much that He sent His Son to be perfect sacrifice once offered so that all who believe in Him are free from the wages of sin, which is death.

          • Bill

            I want to understand your belief system. Was the old testament the word of god? When god commanded people to stone women who were raped in the old testament, was it because it was the right thing to do then?
            And when god commanded Abraham to kill his son, was he doing it because he loved the little bugger? And when god said he would inflict festering boils on people for not doing that undictated morality, is it because he loved the little buggers?
            You believe that god sent himself to save us from himself because a woman made from the rib of another man broke a rule he created when she was told by a talking snake, which created an eternal sin that every person was born with.
            Does not sound legit to me.

          • DevilDog Ding

            In order:
            Yes.

            Irrelevant. Where in the 10 commandments, which was the law handed down by God, not the law as interpreted by man, does it call for the stoning of adulterers? God has always had an issue with man’s tendency to drift away from faith toward legalism and religion.
            No. He did it knowing Abraham’s faith would present an opportunity to show His providence and to pre-figure the coming Christ.
            Which little buggers? He infected the pagans with boils etc to give them an opportunity to let His people go. When the plagues didn’t work, God killed them. God doesn’t care for pagans at all.
            You can mock all you want. That was predicted thousands of years ago, and you’re only fulfilling that prediction.
            Don’t believe if you don’t want to. But be advised: Eternity is a long, long time.

          • Bill

            I suggest you actually read the old testament instead of listening to apologetics describe it.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Clearly, Ted, you don’t understand what the word “apologetics” means. Reliable apologists parse the languages of the Bible, the constructions and various versions — something that I can’t do and I doubt you can, either.

            Because you are not a believer, you proof text until you find something that satisfies your itching ears. That is evident by your fixation on things that are are not compatible with your secular worldview.

            Moreover, you don’t understand the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

            Jesus stepped into time, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. When the Pharisees were getting to drop the rock on the adulteress in John 8, they tried to trick him into undermining the law by saying it commanded her stoning.

            Yet, the one who was sent to fulfill the law — mark that, Ted — the one who was sent to fulfill the law steered the Pharisees off their legalism by convicting them of their own corruption.

            Ted, as today is Ash Wednesday, I am going to make you my special Lenten project. I hope you will continue to engage on this. Meanwhile, I will pray God that He opens your heart to the truth of the Gospel.

            Wouldn’t that be a terrific way to celebrate Easter!

            Amen.

          • Bill

            I know exactly what apologetics is, as I was once one. I won’t make uneducated assumptions about you, however. I have no doubt you believe what you believe. But that doesn’t make any of it true.

          • DevilDog Ding

            What caused your crisis in faith?

          • Bill

            I don’t describe it as a crisis in faith. What happened for me is that I read the bible. I attended a Christian college and theology was a big part of the curriculum.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Were you ever a believer? Going to Christian college etc does not necessarily qualify, right?

          • Bill

            Yes. I was a firm believer. I’m sure it would seem more comfortable to think I wasn’t by most Christians, but when people get new knowledge, their beliefs change. It is as simple as that.

          • DevilDog Ding

            My question stands then: What caused you to stop believing? Simply receiving new knowledge?

          • Bill

            Believe it or not, knowledge is what helped me to be free from Christianity and religion in general. As I said, it is very difficult for people who use faith as their foundation for belief to understand how that happens. There was no one moment where it all came crashing down. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing, so I tried hanging on to my Christian beliefs for a long time.
            I wish I could explain it better, but that is the best I can say at this moment. My beliefs are open to change at any time, and I suspect they will continue to change for as long as I live.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Then there is no objective truth?

          • Bill

            I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion. The simple answer is, “I don’t know.” I can believe there is an objective truth, but that is something I cannot know definitively. Realize that all of our beliefs are based on our knowledge. We are born atheists, and not just to a god/creator. We must learn by knowledge and experience. Every person does this. I just arrived at a point that I realized that faith as an epistemology is not reliable. It is comfortable for many, and can ease cognitive dissonance and fear of the unknown. But when you are introduced to new knowledge, it can break down. I am quite comfortable today to accept that I do not have to know the answers to everything. I don’t have to ascribe a god to it to make me feel at ease. It is an incredible feeling.

          • DevilDog Ding

            That’s interesting. “When you are introduced to new knowledge, it [faith] can break down.”

            That’s exactly what the world wants me to believe. It’s what Paul warned Timothy about when he wrote that people seeking their own desires will surround themselves with false teachers who will tell them what their itching ears want to hear. (I love that phrase, itching ears.)

            Faith isn’t easy; believing in whatever or nothing or everything is. It’s a struggle, no doubt, and by its definition it means I have to believe in things I can’t see. But through that faith, God has adopted me as a co-heir in His Son’s eternal kingdom.

            And that, my friend, is an incredible feeling that no amount of worldly wisdom can offer.

          • Bill

            But since I do not believe there is a god, and do not believe that the various books in the bible are the word of god, they mean nothing to me today. I don’t have false teachers. I believe that you do.
            Faith is not an epistemology worthy of forming my beliefs. I do not believe that it is virtuous. People once believed that the world was flat. They once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong. Knowledge and science set them free. I’ll stick with that, since it is the one thing that had shown to actually bring me closer to truth.

          • DevilDog Ding

            The people who thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth were their scientists of their day. Up until a few years ago, Pluto was a planet, then scientists changed that.

            The point is, science is unstable because the scientific method never arrives at a conclusion. Create a hypothesis, test it, get a result. Ask a question: What happens if [something regarding that result]. Create another hypothesis, test it, get a result. It never ends. The more you look, the more you see. Scientific knowledge is not bad; some of it is quite helpful. But it is transient.

            Woody Allen was spot on in Sleeper:
            http://youtu.be/1yCeFmn_e2c

            Tell you what. Hit me with the “knowledge and science” epiphany that made you decide God does not exist. Be specific, but don’t run long. Chances are I’ve heard it before.

          • Bill

            You clearly don’t understand the nature of science. The use of science advances our knowledge. A hypothesis is just a hypothesis. But scientific fact is scientific fact. Science doesn’t base it’s conclusions on hypothesis, it tests those hypotheses and if they fail, new ones are formed and tested. When a hypothesis is proven true based on the scientific method, it becomes a scientific theory. Much like the theory of gravity, theory of evolution etc. Science cures diseases, lands men on the moon, creates computers and the Internet and proves that the earth is a sphere. It provides the mechanism for MRIs and effective brain surgery. Science is not a conclusion, it is a method for advancement. Its very nature is to continue to change.

            But instead of hitting you with the “epiphany” of “knowledge and science”, how about I just point you to the definition of myth:

            : an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true

            :a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence

            :a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
            If I said I had a talking dog, people would think I am nuts. But when they hear the tale of a talking snake that spoke to a woman mad from a man’s rib, suddenly they think it is plausible. Why? Myth.
            Snakes don’t talk and people who hear voices in their head today are understood to have schizophrenia. It can be observed because science made that possible.

          • DevilDog Ding

            “Science is not a conclusion, it is a method for advancement. Its very nature is to continue to change.”

            Gee, Ted, isn’t that what “transient” means?

            OK. You don’t like Genesis 1. However, as a former apologist, you certainly know that difference in relational behaviors between men and women can be explained in part by the Adam’s rib story. How would Moses know that? Moreover, a couple of thousand years after Moses wrote Genesis, Paul articulated those differences in another way. In either case, both have been upheld by modern social science.

            Don’t that make you say, hmmm?

          • Bill

            Science isn’t “transient”. Knowledge is. Science is a method, and the scientific method doesn’t change.
            That does not make me say “hmmm”. In fact, I like Genesis very much. I like all the stories in the bible (old testament and new). I like them because they illustrate how people thought during that era. I find them interesting because they demonstrate human nature and myth very clearly.
            Because of the story in the bible, people believed for thousands of years that men have one less rib. Oddly enough, many people still believe that. But it is simply not true. People will believe these things because other people believe them. There is even a good evolutionary argument that demonstrates why beliefs in myths were beneficial to the survival of various tribes throughout history. That does not make those myths true.
            Since I majored in social science in my post graduate work, I can tell you that we never once used the bible as a source of anything to uphold relational understanding between men and women. We studied the history of all the world’s religions, but we studied them to observe the mechanism of religion as it relates to human behavior and the creation of myths.
            Religion is formed to make sense of natural phenomenon that cannot be understood due to a lack of knowledge. It is also formed to control parts of society (tribes) to ensure that resources can be controlled and people are kept ignorant and subservient.
            Just yesterday I read an article about a woman who drove her car into the ocean with her kids. Perhaps you heard about it? Do you know what she was babbling about when this happened? Jesus and demons. She was doing what she believed god wanted her to do. Just like the story of Abraham.
            I challenge you to expand your learning to include an objective history of the forming of the various world religions. I challenge you to look outside the bible for knowledge. The bible is a very interesting collection of stories. But unless you can look at it with a critical mind and question it, you will remain a slave to ignorance.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Your slipping, Ted.

            You wrote:”[Science] very nature is to change. Transient: Impermanent. Can you understand my confusion when you change “science” to “knowledge”? in your most recent?

            Your having a hard time with consistency. I often find that’s the case when people don’t really believe what they so desperately want to believe.

            Another indicator: You’re cherry picking outliers and anecdotes to support your position. And, really Ted, should I expect a graduate course in social science to take Christianity seriously? After all, it is just a myth, no?

            Except …

            2,000 years ago, Paul directed the men should love their husbands and wives should respect their husbands. Turns out, respect is exactly what husbands want from their wives and love is what wives want from their husbands.

            How could Paul predict 2,000 years ago what social science confirms today?

            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-joint-adventures-well-educated-couples/201210/women-need-love-and-men-need-respect

            Note: The author needs to refute Eggerich’s findings, so she misrepresents his samples, calling them male and female when the actual sample was husbands and wives.

            She complicates matters by conducting her own survey that does find differently from Eggerich’s, but uses a sample that’s considerably different from his.

            There’s a shock.

          • Bill

            Ah, I should have been more clear in what I meant. Our knowledge of the world changes. The scientific method still stands strong and is not “unstable”.
            I am not going to waste time reading a blog from some author (about an author) I don’t care about. Your claim that somehow Paul new that men (husbands) wanted respect and women (wives) wanted love is hilarious, however. As it turns out, people are far more complex to pin behavioral stereotypes on.
            Social science does not confirm anything based upon a single study, and we also don’t use the bible to predict scientific matters. We use the scientific method, which requires a reproducible outcome in our testing. Do you know what my wife wants? Love, respect, money, happiness, security… I could go on, but the point is that humans want stuff.
            I know you are trying very hard to use that dang bible as the source of something, but there is nothing there but a series of (unoriginal) stories, translated countless times with countless contradictions and tales of violence, rape, sodomy and an evil jealous god who decided to send himself to earth to save us from himself because he himself put a curse on us because a talking snake told a woman made from a man’s rib to do something he told her not to do and she did it.
            If you can’t see that story is complete hogwash, then there is no hope for you. Enjoy your time in ignorance, I’ve got a life to live.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Oh, don’t be a pussy. We’ll put the discussion in your camp:

            Has science discovered anything that created itself? No need to be long-winded; just give a couple of examples.

          • Bill

            Oh, I see. The double-dog dare by telling me not to be a pussy. Instead of answering your question at this moment, let’s put the discussion in your camp.
            Why is a creator necessary? Can something exist without being created?

          • DevilDog Ding

            One thing and one thing only exists which was not created. The only thing which is exists that was not created is the Creator, without whom nothing would exist.

            I answered your questions. Please answer mine:

            Has science discovered anything that created itself? Just a couple of examples will do.

            Thanks. And sorry about the taunt. That was unnecessary.

          • Bill

            DevilDog: One thing and one thing only exists which was not created. The only thing which is exists that was not created is the Creator, without whom nothing would exist.

            Reply: That is a bold claim, but it didn’t answer both questions. Science demonstrates that it is simply not true, but that is another matter.

            DevilDog: Has science discovered anything that created itself? Just a couple of examples will do.

            Reply: The concept of “creation” is something that can only be applied to the temporal universe. That is, within the universe. Modern cosmological models demonstrate that the universe did not need, nor does it exhibit a “creation”. It is eternal. Of course, theists will deny that and gladly accept that a creator can be eternal, but not the universe.
            But to answer your question more directly as it relates to the temporal universe, things have causes (sometimes multiple causes) and due to the linear nature of time, a thing must exist before it can cause anything else, although quantum particles can begin existence in a quantum vacuum without a temporal cause. Therefore, within the universe a thing cannot create itself.
            It can be very difficult for a person to grasp the concept of existence without cause. That is because we live under the constraint of the time dimension. Our universe as a whole does not require a beginning, and time is a physical law contained within the universe. There are many cosmological theories that demonstrate this (multiverse, many worlds, etc.). It can be thought of as “finite within” and “infinite without”. But none of those cosmological theories require a god or creator.
            Also realize that even if a cosmological argument contains a creator, it doesn’t then equal Jesus or Allah or any other human postulation. In fact, it is almost universal in modern science that that the most plausible cosmological theories are much simpler without a creator, i.e. a creator is both unnecessary and requires more effort to add one.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Yowza. Let’s take it from the top.

            I answered both of your questions, although I did answer them out of order: One thing exist that was not created. That thing, the Creator, is necessary because without Him, nothing would exist.

            You are absolutely right: That is a bold claim. But until science can point to one thing and state unequivocally that it created itself, then I’m going to stick with it.

            Maybe i missed that proof. If I did, please enlighten me.

            I’m not a theoretical physicist, as evidently you are, as well as being a former apologist and social scientist, but I think the “Big Bang” is generally accepted as the beginning of the universe, before which nothing existed, not even time or space, if I read Hawking correctly.

            So, if Hawking is right, where did all the matter that ever was and ever will be come from?

            (Yes, I am aware of Hawking’s recent pronouncements, but, then, he is required to say that, isn’t he.)

          • Bill

            DevilDog: I’m not a theoretical physicist, as evidently you are, as well as being a former apologist and social scientist, but I think the “Big Bang” is generally accepted as the beginning of the universe, before which nothing existed, not even time or space, if I read Hawking correctly.

            No, I am not a theoretical physicist. But your sarcasm is duly noted. And, no, I am not a social scientist either. I majored in social sciences, but alas, I left that effort to do more important things. Like feed my family. I’ve never published or conducted a study.

            But I do read. And I have studied some physics and math. And in my reading, there is one thing you are missing in your understanding of the “Big Bang” and what Stephen Hawking illustrates. The Big Bang is not generally accepted as the beginning of the universe. It is generally accepted as the beginning of time. That is that the Big Bang occurred within the universe and is actually the point at which cosmic time began. Time was formed out of three dimensions. That condition of existence when time did not exist is something referred to as the Hartle–Hawking state. The universe is “infinitely finite”. It is finite within, but infinite without. I’ve tried to describe it to you, but you don’t seem to get that point.

            So again, I state it very clearly that the necessity for something to create itself is irrelevant. That is purely a human concept, and it is not necessary. The wavefunctions used to demonstrate the Big Bang model will certainly be refined, and some of the numbers are wrong. But those numbers never lie. That is the funny thing about math. But in all of this, Hawking and his counterparts never needed a reason to inject a god into it to make it work.

          • DevilDog Ding

            And this is makes more sense than, “In the beginning, God …”? Frankly, I find your argument easier to believe because it doesn’t require anything of me. Just say, YES! SCIENCE! and let someone else do the heavy lifting.

            On the other hand, faith is not easy. If it were, everybody would be doing it, right?

            In any case, I subscribe to Occam’s Razor. What you’re telling me assumes a lot: “Necessity … is irrelevant” … “infinitely finite” … “the wave functions used to demonstrate the big bang will certainly be refined” … “some of the numbers are wrong.”

            I understand your need to believe something exists that was not created; I can understand Prof. Hawking’s need for that as well.

            Still HH is a proposal, not a proof. Has an experiment ever been attempted to test any of its assumptions?

            That’s a yes or no question.

          • DevilDog Ding

            And this is makes more sense than, “In the beginning, God …”? Frankly, I find your argument easier to believe because it doesn’t require anything of me. Just say, YES! SCIENCE! and let someone else do the heavy lifting.

            On the other hand, faith is not easy. If it were, everybody would be doing it, right?

            In any case, I subscribe to Occam’s Razor. What you’re telling me assumes a lot: “Necessity … is irrelevant” … “infinitely finite” … “the wave functions used to demonstrate the big bang will certainly be refined” … “some of the numbers are wrong.”

            I understand your need to believe something exists that was not created; I can understand Prof. Hawking’s need for that as well.

            Still HH is a proposal, not a proof. Has an experiment ever been attempted to test any of its assumptions?

            That’s a yes or no question.

          • Evelyn Glover

            Theodore you are picking out things that you don’t agree with but that was the times back then. Jesus was not political and was concerned in giving examples of how to obey him and treat your fellow man. He didn’t get entangled with Caesar’s stuff and warned His followers about it too. Man has created all other Gods from myths and fantasy but the one true God is from the King James version of the bible which I urge you to read. My God is the only God who has a living breathing Son who gave His life on the Cross to save us from sin and to prepare a place for us to go and live eternally with Him and the Father after we leave this life. I know of no other gods or deity who has paid such a price for me. Do You?

          • Jan Jeske

            No – we won’t, because we will cease to exist, just as you will – however delusional you are now, when you are dead, you will just be another dead animal.

            And my respect for Mathew McConaughey just went down the tubes. Apparently he is delusional, too.

          • Ryan Johnson

            This is why people don’t respect you atheists, because you lack respect for others. You act like you’re on the moral high ground but you have no problem calling people who believe different from you delusional. But of course, this is fine since there isn’t a God to judge you for your hypocritical actions.

          • Bill

            “If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother, that person is a piece of $&#@ and I’d like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.” — Matthew Mcconaughey, True Detective

          • DoseofReality

            If that is the only thing keeping a person decent, then they’re a terrible person. I am not a Christian because I expect a divine reward. Nor am I a good person because of it. Those motivated by fear or hope of reward are motivated by the wrong thing.

          • Bill

            I strive to be a good person, but I am not Christian. I do not believe there will be divine reward for my acts of morality. I do it because it is the right thing to do.

          • Jan Jeske

            People who believe with no evidence are either delusional or just plain stupid. Sorry, but that’s a fact.

          • Ryan Johnson

            Yeah, call me when you actually witness a monkey turning into a human.

          • Bill

            Monkeys never turned into humans. Even atheists know that. I won’t say that you are delusional, however. And I won’t say you are stupid. But you clearly don’t understand biological evolution. To be clear:
            Monkeys and humans share a biological ancestor. Monkeys didn’t turn into humans.

          • Devin McDaniel

            Call me when you witness a talking snake or a talking donkey or anything being created through the intervention of god for that matter. When it comes to evidence. Christianity: 0, Evolution: 89787478. This is why many atheists are against Christianity, because it promotes scientific illiteracy (not to mention intolerance) even though evolution doesn’t even necessarily contradict the bible. If it wasn’t for the theory of evolution a lot of what we know today about biology and a lot of what we’ve created because of it wouldn’t exist such as antibiotics. Biologists continue to find more in support of evolution while christians sit on their knees and pray. There are so many things that could have disproven evolution if one thing was out of place because it is falsifiable but they haven’t disproven because they don’t exist. Until the overwhelming majority of scientists disbelieve evolution and actively disprove it I won’t give your comment any credence. The fact is that 99% of scientists endorse evolution as a fact and what few creationist biologists there are never show that they have even a basic understanding of biology. Look up ring species for starters.

          • Tex Dyess

            Why do you have to be so hateful when it comes to those with faith? Arent you liberals so to be tolerant? Do you feel the same way about Muslims and their faith? Or is your behavior only one sided? Just curious.

          • D Reese

            Yes, the same rules apply to Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Scientology, Satanism…it’s all the same. As soon as religion stops trying to affect policy in government and inflict its fairy tales into the science classroom, the moment Muslims and Christians stop slaughtering each other in Africa, when people stop using their religion to hate and discriminate others, then maybe we can have a real conversation about who is truly hateful. I’m an atheist and I’m not hateful, however, I will not tolerate intolerance — especially from religion. Because I am for equal rights, for the separation of church and state, and turned off by the fact that people thank God when winning Academy Awards or Super Bowls while millions of people suffer all over the world…does that make me hateful?

          • marilyn

            Just because your ego thinks YOU did it, you are intolerant of others who know all they have or receive is by the grace of God. It is not a belief in God that causes war and other atrocities but the EGO of the person/people that holds it’s beliefs as supreme. Whether that belief is in atheism, some religion, a country, or just whose team is better than some other, it’s the ego, arrogance, and the rigidity in which we hold our beliefs that is the root of violence Can you say you know it all? Quantum physics comes very close at present to my understanding of what God is. (I belong to no religion) . By the way, do you get the insanity of saying you will not tolerate intolerance?

          • Tex Dyess

            No. It doesn’t make you hateful D Reese. What I am saying, is that this suggests the possibility that you may be emotionally hypersensitive. You allow what others do, affect you personally. Sometimes that can be good, like when someone threatens you. But to be offended if someone thanks God for something, for example, it upsets you so badly that you feel the need to respond. You may feel a personal need to convince this person that he or she is mistaken for wanting to give thanks to something or someone that you have personally decided does not exist. And, as such is your belief, may feel that others should also practice your same belief. Since neither side can prove without any reasonable shadow of a doubt which case is true, the argument becomes moot. It becomes a matter of personal choice of the individual. When one individuals choice impedes on the others right to choose, that is where the conflict is. Separation of church and state means “No Religious Hierarchy may exist.” Or laws in place that say “believe a certain way, or face the consequences.” It is most certainly your right to not like or respect anyone with religious beliefs. That is your personal choice. But on a personal level, you really shouldn’t allow the actions of others control you on such a personal level. Yes there are millions of people suffering everywhere. But how does attacking someones religious view point, help those whom are suffering exactly? If someone is lying in a hospital bed dying. They feel happy because they believe in God. They are at peace. Even tho they are suffering. Do you feel the need to attempt to destroy their belief in God simply because you believe this is a “FAIRY TALE”? Even if this belief makes them feel better about accepting their fate? What if they pass a law here that says “No Individual May Ever Practice Any Religion”? Would you be ok with that? Is that not also forcing your belief in nothing on others, just as wrong as others forcing their belief in something on you? It is an unhealthy to be hypersensitive This puts others in control of your emotions. This is no way to live. Now, was this response hateful?

          • Linda

            Well said.

          • Bill

            Why do you assume that an atheist must be a liberal?

          • Tex Dyess

            I dont assume an athiest is liberal. I do assume that You are. Am I mistaken?

          • Bill

            I am a social libertarian.

          • Tex Dyess

            Are you conservative? Aside from religion, what are your views on the 2nd amendment? Your views on personal responsibility? On Personal liberty? What are your views on the military? Barack Obama? His administration? How do you feel congress is doing? Do you like the A.H.C.A.? Do you agree with it? We know your views on religion, and anyone who believes in a higher power. Are you liberal or conservative?

          • Bill

            Actually, I am a social libertarian. But I do have a friend who is a conservative who is not just atheist, he is anti-theist.
            As for all the other questions, that is a whole other can of worms. But I’ll give you my take on each one:
            2nd Amendment? I support it and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.
            Personal liberty? That is a vague question, but I believe we have (should have) a right to personal liberty. It is perhaps the most important right.
            Military? I was in the army (25th infantry). My father was in the air force. I have three nephews who have served. One of them was a Marine who died in Fallujah. The other served 2 tours in Iraq, and the other is on a submarine in the Persian Gulf. I support our military very much.
            Barack Obama? I think he is a decent person, but don’t support all of his policies. He is our President, so I respect him for that. I don’t believe he is a Muslim, socialist, communist or Marxist. I believe he was born in the USA and was duly elected.
            His administration? Some good, some bad. Not the worst, but not the greatest.
            Congress? They suck. I would remove the whole lot, with the exception of one or two.
            ACA? Good in principle, bad in execution. It is incomplete. I do think that people should be responsible for their own health care costs, so the personal mandate does have some merit. I don’t think the ACA is the proper solution, however.
            And although you didn’t ask, I can tell you that I am pro-choice and I support capital punishment. I also support the right of any two (or more) consenting adults to enter into marital bliss. Every adult deserves the right to pursue their own happiness.

          • Bill

            For the record, I may be atheist, but I do not hate people of faith. I feel that persons of faith should be judged by their actions, not their association to a particular religion. That should be universal among those of faith and those without.

          • DoseofReality

            You could be more respectful. I don’t call you delusional for believing something I find to be a delusion.

          • TheGardenMaster

            And you know this how? Experience? The earth is flat also! The ignorant people in the room are the ones that do not know what they do not know!

          • whiskeytangofox

            And you know this how? How exactly is it that you know what happens to people after they die?

          • Bill

            Which god? There are 30,000 Christian denominations. If you are going to scare someone into a belief, you might want to be sure the god you have chosen is the right one first.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            30,000 denominations?

            Yeah….

            Do you have a source for that? Hint. I know what the original source of the claim is and it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          • Bill

            Oops, my bad. According to the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are actually 41,000 denominations.
            Hint: There are a lot of Christian denominations. Again, I say, which god? Why Christian? Why not Islam? Why not Zeus?
            There is as much evidence for a Christian god as there is for Thor.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, again, you don’t really know what a denomination is. It simply refers to a body that can govern itself. You could have two Baptist churches in a town on opposite ends and each governs itself and while their beliefs would be identical, each would count as a denomination. It’s a false definition.

            As for Thor, Thor is always pictured as part of the creation and in causal dependency to other beings and in fact subject to change. THat puts him in a greater ontological category than YHWH.

          • Bill

            I know what a denomination is. And I also know that they are rarely, if ever, identical. Denominations are run by people. They are organized by people. One church may say that masturbation is a sin. Another may say that gay marriage is acceptable.
            Who is correct? That is my point.
            And you missed my point about Thor. There is as much proof for his existence as there is for any other god. I am simply stating that there is no proof. None. You continue to avoid providing that proof. To change my beliefs, you simply need to provide me with one piece of evidence. And since there can never be such a thing as providing evidence for “non-existence”, that argument is invalid.
            One piece of evidence is all I ask.

          • marilyn

            You are asking for proof. What, a physical artifact? Evidence in this world of another? What exactly. Here’s some. Read accounts of People who died on the operating table and came back. I have actually spoken to someone who was dying and on his way to the other side. He spoke in Italian. He didn’t know Italian. People on the operating table seeing every detail of their surgery………. You are not your body, your brain, your personality, your mind, your ego. You are a Holy spirit inhabiting That stubborn Theodore guy

          • Bill

            That is very anecdotal information. While interesting, it is not proof of anything. The human senses betray us constantly. When I look at a red ball, I can say, “that ball is red.” But it is not red. It is every color but red. That is simple physics that we now understand. Perception can and is often deceptive.

            There is a naturally occurring substance in the human body that causes hallucinations, and is especially present during time of death. That substance is DMT, or dimethyltryptamine. Many people manufacture DMT as a hallucinogenic drug just to experience this very thing.
            As for the bloke who suddenly spoke Italian, I simply do not believe you. I may believe that you thought he spoke Italian, or that perhaps you wanted to believe it was Italian.
            And even if all of these anecdotal stories were true, they don’t mean I should suddenly become Christian any more than I should suddenly become Muslim.

          • Dmitri

            His argument still stands in that even Christianity has followers that do not agree with other Christian’s beliefs. Which God is right? The Baptist view of the Abrahamic God or the Mormon’s God? They are not one in the same and that leads us to another question: if there is a deity which one is right? This is literally a test of faith.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Of course there’s disagreement, but his whole idea of that many denominations is just false. Meanwhile, Christians by and large agree on far more than they disagree. If disagreement is a sign of lack of truth, then we might as well say no one knows anything since there is hardly a proposition everyone agrees with, including the existence of truth itself.

          • Dmitri

            But you know that isn’t true. We can learn the truth through science and finding evidence that supports our ideas.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. I don’t know this isn’t true. I know postmoderns are on the rise who say that there is no truth. I know there are people who are skeptical of science finding truth as well. I also do not hold to any scientism that says science alone holds the way to knowing truth or is even the best way of knowing truth.

          • Bill

            There is truth. And it does not require a believer. As a society, I do believe we are coming closer to truth every day. One of the things that has hindered progress, however, is religion. The gaps for god’s existence become ever smaller as we discover the truth. Perhaps he will be found in that final gap.

          • Devin McDaniel

            no, I won’t know anything because I’ll be dead.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Well you can think that way, I’d just like to know if you have any evidence since you are asserting non-existence. That’s fine that you think that, but why should anyone else?

          • mikemazzla

            Ive heard that “argument a lot” The onus is not to prove something doesnt exist..it is on you to prove it does, That is like saying prove to me the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, no. If someone asserts God is a delusion and doesn’t exist. They have to show it. Let’s suppose that you say “Well you have to show that He exists.” Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that I can’t. Does it follow then that God does not exist? No. If I was unable to demonstrate my side, it would not mean that the atheist side had automatically been demonstrated.

            Now if someone wants to say they are an agnostic instead, which is much more reasonable, and just say they don’t know, well then I’ll gladly give my reasons for being a theist and give my arguments, but since others here have made the claim first, it is up to them to back their claim. It is not up to me to show the opposite.

          • Bill

            You have a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god (or gods). It is not an assertion of proof there is no god. Many atheists are agnostic. Many theists are agnostic. Belief and knowledge are two different things.
            The age old argument of proving something doesn’t exist is a dead-end argument. I cannot prove unicorns or leprechauns don’t exist any more than prove Jesus is not the son of a god who may or may not exist. But a lack of evidence for their existence is enough for me to believe they don’t. I cannot know 100% that they don’t exist. But to believe in something that has no proof is where faith comes in. Faith is not a virtue. It is a belief in something without proof. It is akin to pretending to know something I cannot know.
            I am an agnostic atheist.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Theodore: You have a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god (or gods). It is not an assertion of proof there is no god.

            Reply: This was a reinterpretation of atheism that Bertrand Russell tried in his debate with Copleston. It won’t work. Here’s why. The word comes from the Greek and in Greek, when you put the alpha, an a, in front of something, it negates it.

            So let’s suppose for the sake of argument that God exists. Theism is true.

            But if atheism is the lack of belief, then atheism can be true while theism is true. That means by this redefinition, a claim and its opposite can both be true, a contradiction of the law of noncontradiction.

            Furthermore, to say you lack god belief is not to say anything about reality. It is simply a statement of psychology. It is thus irrefutable. You cannot refute it any more than you can refute that I have God belief. That would mean theism is also irrefutable.

            Theodore: Many atheists are agnostic. Many theists are agnostic. Belief and knowledge are two different things.

            Reply: Yes. Knowledge is holding something with demonstration. Belief is holding something to be true without demonstration. Therefore, do you hold a claim to be true without demonstration?

            Theodore: The age old argument of proving something doesn’t exist is a dead-end argument. I cannot prove unicorns or leprechauns don’t exist any more than prove Jesus is not the son of a god who may or may not exist.

            Reply: Unicorns and leprechauns do not have the same ontological weight as God does for the purpose of debate. You can in fact argue that God doesn’t exist. That’s what the problem of evil is all about. That’s what the purpose is of showing contradictions in the nature of God.

            Theodore: But a lack of evidence for their existence is enough for me to believe they don’t.

            Reply: Let me warn you, if you think the historical Jesus is an open question, then you are taking a position that is a fringe and is treated as a joke by scholarship today.

            Theodore: I cannot know 100% that they don’t exist. But to believe in something that has no proof is where faith comes in. Faith is not a virtue. It is a belief in something without proof. It is akin to pretending to know something I cannot know.

            Reply: Ah yes. Someone has come down with a serious case of Boghossian. Well it’s time to practice some doxastic openness. There is not a single Lexicon out there that defines faith (Pistis) the way Boghossian does. Here is a more scholarly definition.

            Faith/Faithfulness

            “These terms refer to the value of
            reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and
            qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal
            relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal
            faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well
            as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that
            binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally
            rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it
            works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and
            the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p.
            72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

            Faith in the sense of the atheist position is not a virtue. It is foolishness. No one should believe something blindly. That’s why I don’t accept the new atheist definition of faith. I prefer to avoid foolishness.

          • Bill

            That’s a lot of words. To summarize what I stated, agnosticism an atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive. And atheism is not a belief in the same way that theism is a belief.
            Athiesm is “without belief”. Theism is “with belief”. Agnosticism is “without knowledge”. I am an agnostic atheist in the sense that I do not believe (there is no faith required to lack belief), but I also do not know. I have some knowledge, as do you. But neither of us holds a proof of existence or non-existence.
            Regarding faith, you can have any definition you want. The way that I define faith is believing something I cannot know, or pretending to know something I don’t. I can have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot know it will rise. Since it has risen every day of my life, my faith in that is much stronger. That is faith based upon proof. But I have never once seen proof of a god. Faith based upon a lack of proof is not the same.
            Regarding doxastic logic, I am not firm in my beliefs. I remain open. Show me proof of existence if you want to change my belief. I have always remained open-minded and I am constantly seeking knowledge to find truth.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Theodore: That’s a lot of words.

            Reply: It’s also a lot of information. Got a counter-argument?

            Theodore: To summarize what I stated, agnosticism an atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive. And atheism is not a belief in the same way that theism is a belief.Athiesm is “without belief”. Theism is “with belief”. Agnosticism is “without knowledge”. I am an agnostic atheist in the sense that I do not believe (there is no faith required to lack belief), but I also do not know. I have some knowledge, as do you. But neither of us holds a proof of existence or non-existence.

            Reply: I see, so no real reply. You just repeated your statement of faith. You did not show how my argument was wrong but want to rest on an equivocation of belief. As for proof. I do hold that the first way of Aquinas is in fact a proof.

            Theodore: Regarding faith, you can have any definition you want. The way that I define faith is believing something I cannot know, or pretending to know something I don’t.

            Reply; No you can’t. That’s postmodernism. Words mean what the author intends them to mean. If the Christians historically used pistis the way scholarship shows they did, you cannot redefine that to fit your modern idea. If that’s the case, then I will redefine atheists as child abusers who drown puppies for fun.

            Theodore: I can have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot know it will rise. Since it has risen every day of my life, my faith in that is much stronger. That is faith based upon proof.

            Reply: That is trust, which is a better meaning of faith. Faith is not how you know things but a response to what you know.

            Theodore: But I have never once seen proof of a god. Faith based upon a lack of proof is not the same.

            Reply: No one should believe in God blindly. That’s why I use the resurrection of Jesus and the first way of Aquinas as my arguments.

            Theodore: Regarding doxastic logic, I am not firm in my beliefs. I remain open. Show me proof of existence if you want to change my belief. I have always remained open-minded and I am constantly seeking knowledge to find truth.

            Reply: My arguments are above. Choose which one you want to deal with.

          • Bill

            You once again completely avoid the argument by deflection. There is no proof of the resurrection of Jesus. There are claims. There are allegations. But there is not one single piece of evidence.
            And the first way of Aquinas is not fact. It is further argument. I can understand why Aquinas can hold that argument, considering it was made so long ago before understanding of quantum mechanics was even a thing. People at that time also believe the sun revolved around the earth. Ignorance to science can make a person believe many things.

          • Dmitri

            The argument against unicorns and the Abrahamic God do have something in common: lack of evidence for either’s existence. They so not need to carry the same “weight in importance” in order to make an analogous reference. There is no proof in the Abrahamic God ever existing, I would be curious to know if you could support your faith with evidence before asking an Atheist to support his own lack of evidence. We cannot make evidence for something that doesn’t exist, Nick.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, the weight of importance does matter. THere are greater implications to one’s worldview depending on the God question than there are to a unicorn question. Still, if you want evidence, I start with two arguments. The first is the first way of Aquinas. The second is the resurrection of Jesus.

          • Dmitri

            No, it doesn’t. The argument is that neither exist.

            Aquinas does not prove the Abrahamic God’s existence. First, he assumes that God is free from his own requirements. We cannot ask where God comes from. It also does not determine which God we are talking about. You can use this argument to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us. Or that multiple gods did. Physics has also discovered natural phenomena that has no discernible cause.

            What proof do you have that Jesus resurrected?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, Aquinas assumes nothing. He makes an argument. There cannot be an infinite regress per re as that is just a series of instrumental causes with no efficient cause behind them. If there is an efficient cause, then it must avoid being part of the chain. To avoid that, it must be a being that has no passive potential to it. That negates any FSM because such a creature is a combination of matter + form and thus, cannot be absolutely simple as the first cause must be. Now of course it doesn’t mean that this proves the Abrahamic God, but it proves a being that is highly consistent with God. You cannot prove Christianity by reason alone.

            As for the resurrection, there are excellent works such as N.T. Wright’s “The Resurrection of the Son of God” or Michael Licona’s “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”

            But let’s do this one step at a time. What do you think about the case for the existence of a historical Jesus?

          • Dmitri

            That still doesn’t answer the question in terms of physics. Any sort of special pleading that insists that a god cannot have a creator due to an infinite regress, “turtles upon turtles”, can be and is being denied. I have no reason to believe that god is and just is.

            You could just give proof, instead, it would be much faster.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            The problem is what kind of infinite regress is Aquinas talking about? Is he talking about one per accidens or one that is per re? Per accidens, Aquinas has no problem with. He believes such a regress is possible. Per re, he has a problem with. Why? It’s because if there are instrumental causes, there must be an efficient cause. To have secondary causes, there must be a primary cause. This cause does not have to be first in chronology. It is first in ontology.

            Why does God not have a cause in this sense? Because what is being explained is motion in something. It is explaining how objects receive motion. To avoid the infinite regress per re, there must be somewhere on the line something that does not receive motion but is the cause of motion in all other things. That cause would then be an unmoved mover. If you do not have an unmoved mover, then you have motion that is not explained.

          • Kristian Alekov

            He never existed of course. Stop bringing the Bible into the conversation, those of us who don’t agree with it find it funny. You can’t prove anything with it. None of the historians that lived during his time recorded ANY information about him, it’s very clear that he never existed.

          • Bill

            You continue to state the first way of Aquinas as proof. It is a philosophical argument, but not proof. It is also self-contradictory. If a mover is always required, than what moved god? If you can believe that god was infinite in this sense, then Aquinas argument is invalid.
            There are plenty of arguments regarding the existence of Jesus. I happen to believe that this person did exist, but that does not mean he was resurrected. Proof of the resurrection would actually mean something. If you can show me that proof, I will sincerely investigate it and consider what I believe. I have not found that yet, and I have looked far and wide.
            As an agnostic atheist, I do not claim there is no god. I do claim that there is no known evidence for the existence of god. There may be a god, or creator. I cannot know. But since I see no evidence for it, I don’t believe it.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Theodore: You continue to state the first way of Aquinas as proof. It is a philosophical argument, but not proof.

            Reply: It is specifically a metaphysical argument and the God question is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one. Therefore, we use metaphysics. Note also that you say a philosophical argument is not proof. This is what you are saying.

            Arguments need to be built on proof.
            Philosophical arguments are not proof.
            Therefore, philosophical arguments are not usable to prove anything.

            The problem? This is a philosophical argument to prove that you cannot prove something with a philosophical argument.

            Theodore: It is also self-contradictory. If a mover is always required, than what moved god?

            Reply: It’s so amusing when you pretend to know something you don’t know. Such as this case of pretending to know what motion is. Motion is the changing of passive potency to actuality. It is something that is received. What is being explained is passive potency being turned to actuality anywhere. Why is God exempt? Because in order to explain this and avoid an infinite regress per re, you have to have something that is not part of the chain itself. This something must not receive motion at all but be the cause of motion.

            Theodore: If you can believe that god was infinite in this sense, then Aquinas argument is invalid.

            Reply: In what sense? God is an infinite of quality and not of quantity. The argument says nothing about that. Aquinas is also open to an infinite regress per accidens. He is not open to one per re as the per re one depends on instrumental causes constantly in usage.

            Theodore: There are plenty of arguments regarding the existence of Jesus. I happen to believe that this person did exist, but that does not mean he was resurrected.

            Reply: That much is true.

            Theodore: Proof of the resurrection would actually mean something. If you can show me that proof, I will sincerely investigate it and consider what I believe. I have not found that yet, and I have looked far and wide.

            REply: Then I ask if his crucifixion is accepted based on these kinds of statements by non-Christian scholars.

            Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as
            messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his
            crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief
            “stumbling block” for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition
            come from? It must have actually happened. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A
            Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages
            221-222)

            Jesus was executed by crucifixion, which was a
            common method of torture and execution used by the Romans. (Dale Martin, New
            Testament History and Literature. Page 181)

            That Jesus was executed because he or someone
            else was claiming that he was the king of the Jews seems to be historically
            accurate. (ibid. 186)

            Jesus’ execution is as historically certain as
            any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details
            that fill out the story? (John Dominic Crossan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-d…_b_847504.html)

            “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence
            of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a
            deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further
            here.” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” Page 17.)

          • Bill

            I am not saying arguments need to be built on proof. What I am saying is that arguments are not proof. They are not fact. Aquinas arguments are not proof. As a thought experiment they are certainly compelling, but what we know about modern physics today demonstrates that something can come from nothing. It happens constantly.
            Secondly, I have no idea why you would think I don’t know what movement is. I don’t pretend to know something about it, I know a lot about it.
            Third, even if Aquinas argument was true, it doesn’t have to be god that is outside the chain, and it certainly doesn’t have to be a Christian god. Humans have a difficult time accepting infinity without ascribing a god to it.
            Regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, I don’t state that it didn’t happen. It probably did, as it happened to many people in those times. What I find dubious, however, is the claims of resurrection. There is no evidence for it. You seem to focused on proving his existence and crucifixion. I see quite a bit of historical record for that which is enough for me to conclude it is very likely (not 100% sure). So on that we agree.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Theodore: I am not saying arguments need to be built on proof. What I am saying is that arguments are not proof. They are not fact. Aquinas arguments are not proof.

            Reply: Actually, Aquinas’s arguments are built on evidence and are deductive arguments. What needs to be shown is that a premise is wrong or that there is a mistake in the form. If not, the conclusion follows. Fortunately, you do attempt to show a premise is wrong next.

            Theodore: As a thought experiment they are certainly compelling, but what we know about modern physics today demonstrates that something can come from nothing. It happens constantly.

            Reply: Could you define what nothing is? If it is not the same as Aquinas’s definition of nothing, it is invalid to the argument and please tell me it’s not Krauss’s bogus definition.

            Theodore: Secondly, I have no idea why you would think I don’t know what movement is. I don’t pretend to know something about it, I know a lot about it.

            Reply: Because motion here is a medieval term and not a term from physics. Most people presume a Newtonian understanding.

            Theodore: Third, even if Aquinas argument was true, it doesn’t have to be god that is outside the chain, and it certainly doesn’t have to be a Christian god. Humans have a difficult time accepting infinity without ascribing a god to it.

            Reply: I have never once said it had to be the Christian God. It’s just compatible with the Christian God. Whatever is outside of the chain, it must be a being of pure actuality with a will that is non-material. Do you have a better qualifier?

            Theodore: Regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, I don’t state that it didn’t happen. It probably did, as it happened to many people in those times. What I find dubious, however, is the claims of resurrection. There is no evidence for it. You seem to focused on proving his existence and crucifixion. I see quite a bit of historical record for that which is enough for me to conclude it is very likely (not 100% sure). So on that we agree.

            Reply: Because too many atheists hold to the kooky Christ-myth theory and thus are beyond reason. I make it on a case by case basis establishing each piece of evidence. So then, do you accept that Jesus was buried?

          • Bill

            Aquinas arguments are based on deductive logic. It is not evidence, it is a philosophical series of deductive conclusions. Considering the knowledge people had during that time, I can say it sounds quite compelling. If I, however, apply those arguments to what we know about the universe today, they are far less compelling. We can observe particles appearing in a quantum vacuum. I could certainly argue that god makes that happen, or that something outside our universe (outside the chain) makes it happen, but that is not evidence. It is a lack of knowing what is actually happening. Just because we do not currently know what is happening, doesn’t mean it is god.
            I am not going to argue metaphysical motion as opposed to physical motion as described by Newton. I understand clearly what is meant in Aquinas arguments, but his arguments are meant to be universal. Physics demonstrates universal laws which can be observed through observation and experimentation. The same cannot be said of the metaphysical arguments. I can experiment only in my thoughts with deduction, but that is philosophy. I do not consider it a reliable source of proof.
            I do not ascribe god to the infinite (pure actuality and non-material) because a lack of knowing doesn’t then equal god. That is a leap that is not necessary. Instead, I can say, “I do not know.” That is far more reasonable, considering all the things that were ascribed to god that are now understood to not be god. I would prefer to base my beliefs on what I know, not on what I don’t.
            Regarding Jesus burial, I can say that it is very likely that if he did exist and was crucified that he was buried. Historical record shows that ritual to be quite common. That does not mean resurrection.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Theodore: Aquinas arguments are based on deductive logic.

            Reply: Actually, this is false. Aquinas’s arguments are deductive in nature, but they’re based on evidence gathered from sense experience. Aquinas is an empiricist after all.

            Theodore: It is not evidence, it is a philosophical series of deductive conclusions.

            Reply: Yes. Aquinas obviously just threw out a bunch of sayings that had no connection whatsoever to the real world. Yeah right. Aquinas based his claim on what anyone around them could see happening every day and an Aristotlean understanding of efficient causation and instrumental causation. He assumes you’re familiar with that.

            Perhaps you should be.

            Theodore: Considering the knowledge people had during that time, I can say it sounds quite compelling. If I, however, apply those arguments to what we know about the universe today, they are far less compelling. We can observe particles appearing in a quantum vacuum.

            Reply: This might surprise you, but a quantum vacuum is still something. It is a far cry from nothing in the metaphysical sense.

            Theodore: I could certainly argue that god makes that happen, or that something outside our universe (outside the chain) makes it happen, but that is not evidence. It is a lack of knowing what is actually happening. Just because we do not currently know what is happening, doesn’t mean it is god.

            Reply: And the cause of the existing of the quantum vacuum is? Whatever it is, Aquinas has made the argument it cannot be material since a material reality always has potential and thus is part of the chain.

            Theodore: I am not going to argue metaphysical motion as opposed to physical motion as described by Newton. I unders tand cle arly what is meant in Aquinas arguments, but his arguments are meant to be universal. Physics demonstrates universal laws which can be observed through observation and experimentation. The same cannot be said of the metaphysical arguments. I can experiment only in my thoughts with deduction, but that is philosophy. I do not consider it a reliable source of proof.

            Reply: Actually, the same can be said with metaphysical laws. These come by observation too. Aquinas is not just sitting and thinking. He’s looking at the world around him.

            Theodore: I do not ascribe god to the infinite (pure actuality and non-material) because a lack of knowing doesn’t then equal god. That is a leap that is not necessary. Instead, I can say, “I do not know.” That is far more reasonable, considering all the things that were ascribed to god that are now understood to not be god. I would prefer to base my beliefs on what I know, not on what I don’t.

            Reply: So does Aquinas. THat’s why later on he in the Summa makes arguments based on reason for those qualities of God. Now you can say you don’t know. I can just say it looks more like you’re avoiding a conclusion you don’t like. What needs to be shown is either an error in the premises or a mistake in the reasoning. That’s the way deductive arguments work.

            Theodore: Regarding Jesus burial, I can say that it is very likely that if he did exist and was crucified that he was buried. Historical record shows that ritual to be quite common. That does not mean resurrection.

            Reply: Correct again. Now for the next step. What about the claim that people saw the risen Christ after he was crucified?

          • Bill

            Nick: Actually, this is false. Aquinas’s arguments are deductive in nature, but they’re based on evidence gathered from sense experience. Aquinas is an empiricist after all.

            Reply: No, you are wrong. That is what logic is. “If this, then that” is a series of logical deductions. Just because they are gathered from a human sense doesn’t make them any less of a deductive logic.

            Nick: Yes. Aquinas obviously just threw out a bunch of sayings that had no connection whatsoever to the real world. Yeah right. Aquinas based his claim on what anyone around them could see happening every day and an Aristotlean understanding of efficient causation and instrumental causation. He assumes you’re familiar with that.

            That would be interesting if I argued against that. I didn’t.

            Nick: Perhaps you should be.

            Reply: Perhaps you assume too much.

            Nick: This might surprise you, but a quantum vacuum is still something. It is a far cry from nothing in the metaphysical sense.

            Reply: Metaphysics hopes to deal with that which is outside the senses, but is based upon our very weak senses. Our knowledge of physics shows us many things that happen outside our senses. Metaphysics did not bring us to that information, and is a very unreliable epistemology. When metaphysics can predict things like the Higgs Boson or quarks, please let me know. Metaphysics could not even demonstrate that we don’t see colors, but rather the absence of those colors. It took quantum electrodynamics to lead to that discovery.

            Nick: And the cause of the existing of the quantum vacuum is? Whatever it is, Aquinas has made the argument it cannot be material since a material reality always has potential and thus is part of the chain.

            Reply: I won’t say god is the cause of a quantum vacuum. That is a conclusion that is not necessary, and a very weak conclusion. It can be easily demonstrated that time is an artifact of the big bang. Without the dimension of time, infinity is possible in the material sense. To say that it is impossible for something to come from nothing is an argument based upon our inability to comprehend things outside our senses. Physics does a much better job showing us the truth than philosophical arguments based on human senses.

            Nick: Actually, the same can be said with metaphysical laws. These come by observation too. Aquinas is not just sitting and thinking. He’s looking at the world around him.

            Reply: The human senses are perhaps the most blunt instrument for actually observing the universe. We know that now, but Aquinas did not. Since he lacked the tools we have today, his arguments were once compelling. Not anymore.

            Nick: So does Aquinas. THat’s why later on he in the Summa makes arguments based on reason for those qualities of God. Now you can say you don’t know. I can just say it looks more like you’re avoiding a conclusion you don’t like. What needs to be shown is either an error in the premises or a mistake in the reasoning. That’s the way deductive arguments work.

            Reply: I am not avoiding a conclusion. Because the initial premise is false, the rest of the argument is invalid. I am quite comfortable not jumping to conclusions to appease cognitive dissonance.

            Nick: Correct again. Now for the next step. What about the claim that people saw the risen Christ after he was crucified?

            Reply: What about the claims of bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? UFOs? Claims that a talking snake spoke to a woman made from a man’s rib? Claims are not evidence, and just as someone can claim that a statue bleeds (and be shown to be wrong), it is more likely that the claims are false. The books of the new testament of the bible were not even written during the time the supposed resurrection happened. They are 2nd and 3rd hand recounting of stories that may or may not have truth to begin with. They are even less reliable. Evidence is tangible. Claims are not, until proven with evidence. The stories in the bible are just that–stories.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Theodore: No, you are wrong. That is what logic is. “If this, then that” is a series of logical deductions. Just because they are gathered from a human sense doesn’t make them any less of a deductive logic.

            Reply: Actually, I did argue that they are a form of deductive logic, but that logic does not start from reason alone. It starts from sense experience. Also, in deductive logic, if the premises are true and the form of the argument is sound, the conclusion necessarily follows.

            For instance,

            All dogs have six legs.
            Mittens is a dog.
            Mittens has six legs.

            This arguments works entirely. The form is valid. If the premises were true, we would know Mittens has six legs. The problem is the premises are wrong.

            All humans are rational.
            Aquinas is rational.
            Aquinas is a human.

            In this case, the premises are true, but the conclusion is false due to an undistributed middle. Aquinas could be a human, but he could also be an angel, a god, or maybe an intelligent alien.

            Again, to show the argument is wrong, you must show a premise is wrong, which would be something concerning motion, or somewhere where the argument makes a mistake. You don’t just assert that it doesn’t work or say “We don’t know.” That’s not an option with deductive logic.

            Theodore: Perhaps you assume too much.

            Reply: If you mean I assume you’re familiar with Aristotlean thinking, no. I never assumed that.

            Theodore: Metaphysics hopes to deal with that which is outside the senses, but is based upon our very weak senses.

            Reply: Actually, this is false. This is not what the object of study of metaphysics is. Physics, for instance, studies being in motion. Biology studies living being. Zoology studies animal beings. Astronomy studies being in space. Want to try to guess again what metaphysics studies?

            Theodore: Our knowledge of physics shows us many things that happen outside our senses. Metaphysics did not bring us to that information, and is a very unreliable epistemology. When metaphysics can predict things like the Higgs Boson or quarks, please let me know. Metaphysics could not even demonstrate that we don’t see colors, but rather the absence of those colors. It took quantum electrodynamics to lead to that discovery.

            Reply: This is faulting metaphysics for not doing what it was never meant to do. It’s be like faulting a screwdriver because it’s not good at hammering in nails. I might as well fault my computer because it doesn’t fix breakfast for me in the morning.

            Theodore: I won’t say god is the cause of a quantum vacuum. That is a conclusion that is not necessary, and a very weak conclusion. It can be easily demonstrated that time is an artifact of the big bang. Without the dimension of time, infinity is possible in the material sense. To say that it is impossible for something to come from nothing is an argument based upon our inability to comprehend things outside our senses. Physics does a much better job showing us the truth than philosophical arguments based on human senses.

            Reply: Do you even know what nothing is? If you know what nothing is, you know that saying something came from nothing is ipso facto nonsense. Note also the movement to a God is necessary. The conclusion must avoid a being that has no passive potential and all material beings have passive potential.

            Theodore: The human senses are perhaps the most blunt instrument for actually observing the universe. We know that now, but Aquinas did not. Since he lacked the tools we have today, his arguments were once compelling. Not anymore.

            Reply: This bears no relation to what was said since Aquinas based his arguments on what was observed through the senses. Furthermore, you can say that he was wrong about something he observed, but you need to show that.

            Theodore: I am not avoiding a conclusion. Because the initial premise is false, the rest of the argument is invalid. I am quite comfortable not jumping to conclusions to appease cognitive dissonance.

            Reply: Interesting to hear a statement of cognitive dissonance. This is the local new bet in town. I suppose you haven’t read Festinger’s work on the subject. At any rate, you haven’t shown an initial premise is false. That needs to be done first.

            Theodore: What about the claims of bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? UFOs? Claims that a talking snake spoke to a woman made from a man’s rib? Claims are not evidence, and just as someone can claim that a statue bleeds (and be shown to be wrong), it is more likely that the claims are false. The books of the new testament of the bible were not even written during the time the supposed resurrection happened. They are 2nd and 3rd hand recounting of stories that may or may not have truth to begin with. They are even less reliable. Evidence is tangible. Claims are not, until proven with evidence. The stories in the bible are just that–stories.

            Reply: Okay. Well let’s look at what scholarship has to say about the appearances.

            “We can say with
            complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that
            . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from
            the dead.” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, pg
            230).

            “That Jesus’ followers
            (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What
            the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” (E.P.
            Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg 280)

            “That the experiences
            did occur, even if they are explained in purely natural terms, is a fact upon
            which both believer and unbeliever can agree.” (Reginald H. Fuller, Foundations
            of New Testament Christology, 142)

            “The only thing that we can certainly say to be
            historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in
            Jerusalem) soon after Jesus’s death. These appearances cannot be denied” (Gerd
            Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” p. 81)

            Now as to the Gospels not being written until later, of course not. Why should they be? Much of the world was illiterate and oral tradition was a far better conveyor of information, even after the account was written. Memories were far better back then and the stories would not be told in isolation but would be told in group settings. With these stories, verbatim memorization was not the key but rather it was more important to get the thrust of the story right. Minor details weren’t a big deal.

            In comparison to other works of literature, the Gospels are extremely early and in fact, the information I’ve given on death, burial, and appearances can all be found in 1 Cor. 15. In fact, not only are they found there, scholars today across the board hold that Paul is citing an ancient tradition that at the latest dates to within 2-5 years of the event. This is ablip in the ancient world.

            And as for being second and thirdhand accounts, you need to be able to interact with the claims found in Richard Bauckham’s massive work “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” that show the Gospels are in fact eyewitness accounts.

            Now if you want, we can compare all that information to the claims of Bigfoot, UFOs, and the Loch-Ness Monster and we’ll see which one comes out on top. Note also that even if they were similar, it would not explain away the data collected by leading scholars.

          • Bill

            Nick: Actually, I did argue that they are a form of deductive logic, but that logic does not start from reason alone. It starts from sense experience. Also, in deductive logic, if the premises are true and the form of the argument is sound, the conclusion necessarily follows.

            Reply: If the premise were true, I would grant you that. And perhaps within the universe the premise could be true, but the universe as a whole does not require a creation, creator or “prime mover”. As a whole, the universe is not bound by the laws of physics observed within it. Modern have sound theories that show that the universe can be and most likely is eternal. And taking that further, if you ask any cosmologist the question of whether a god or creator was responsible for creating the universe, you will be laughed at. It isn’t even considered anymore. The god concept in cosmology was negated a long time ago.

            Nick: Again, to show the argument is wrong, you must show a premise is wrong, which would be something concerning motion, or somewhere where the argument makes a mistake. You don’t just assert that it doesn’t work or say “We don’t know.” That’s not an option with deductive logic.

            Reply: As already explained, Aquinas firsts way assertion isn’t the only possible deduction. And with what modern physics understands today, it isn’t even considered anymore. The premise is not considered because it is a neat thought experiment like “Could god create a rock so heavy that even he couldn’t lift it?” The way of a god or gods in describing our universe is long gone, and only a few real scientists still grasp for it. That science allows us to be honest and say, “We don’t know,” is what makes it so good. And to think we can’t deduce that we don’t know something with logic is pure hogwash.

            Nick: Actually, this is false. This is not what the object of study of metaphysics is. Physics, for instance, studies being in motion. Biology studies living being. Zoology studies animal beings. Astronomy studies being in space. Want to try to guess again what metaphysics studies?

            Reply: I know exactly what metaphysics is, and also what it pretends to be. I, and many persons of modern science, believe that it is not real science. It is interesting as a philosophical exercise and might give way to creative ideas, but I don’t give it any more credibility than I do astrology.

            Nick: This is faulting metaphysics for not doing what it was never meant to do. It’s be like faulting a screwdriver because it’s not good at hammering in nails. I might as well fault my computer because it doesn’t fix breakfast for me in the morning.

            Reply: Metaphysics is an interesting practice of ideas and philosophies. I really don’t give it much more weight than that. It is the last grasp to try to make theism seem supplemental to the predictive nature science. It’s not.

            Nick: Do you even know what nothing is? If you know what nothing is, you know that saying something came from nothing is ipso facto nonsense. Note also the movement to a God is necessary. The conclusion must avoid a being that has no passive potential and all material beings have passive potential.

            Reply: If the universe as a whole is eternal, which many modern cosmologists believe and is demonstrated in numerous sound physical models, “nothing” is a concept only within the universe. There is no god required. The universe as a whole does not need a “nothing”.

            Nick: This bears no relation to what was said since Aquinas based his arguments on what was observed through the senses. Furthermore, you can say that he was wrong about something he observed, but you need to show that.

            Reply: Actually, it is exactly the issue. I’ve already explained to that Aquinas had no knowledge of modern physics, nor cosmology. I don’t have to say that he was wrong. I will instead take the position that modern cosmologists take. God is not required. We have plenty of sound theories that demonstrate that the universe is most likely eternal, and none of them then need a “plus god” to make that happen. Adding god is just an extra step that complicates the simplicity of the matter.

            Nick: Interesting to hear a statement of cognitive dissonance. This is the local new bet in town. I suppose you haven’t read Festinger’s work on the subject. At any rate, you haven’t shown an initial premise is false. That needs to be done first.

            Reply: I’ve already shown you that the initial premise is not fact, it is argument. If it were cognitive dissonance I was exhibiting, I would have to hold two opposing beliefs on it. I don’t. And I don’t ignore the argument of Aquinas to avoid something uncomfortable, I understand the argument fully and find it without merit.

            Nick: Okay. Well let’s look at what scholarship has to say about the appearances.

            Reply: All of your scholar’s statements are opinion, and demonstrate your confirmation bias. There is no physical evidence to these. When a historian says, “We can say with complete certainty”, I immediately realize the agenda. Historians who look at that era don’t speak with such absolutes. They speak to the historical record and use terms similar to “it is likely” or “it is not likely”. And when they say “…is, in my judgment, a fact”, they betray the meaning of fact. I can go on and on with this, but even if you could show me one actual first hand eyewitness account of the resurrection of Jesus, I laugh at it because it defies everything we know about the death of a person. People don’t resurrect. When you are dead, you are dead. To accept the claim–even from a firsthand account–requires faith. And faith is not evidence.

            Nick: Now as to the Gospels not being written until later, of course not. Why should they be? Much of the world was illiterate and oral tradition was a far better conveyor of information, even after the account was written. Memories were far better back then and the stories would not be told in isolation but would be told in group settings. With these stories, verbatim memorization was not the key but rather it was more important to get the thrust of the story right. Minor details weren’t a big deal.

            Reply: This is laughable on its face. Memories were far better back then? And what evidence do you have for that? Did the human brain devolve? What can be said is that tribes told stories and those stores were passed around. The claim of Jesus resurrection isn’t the first of its kind. But even if they got the stories exactly right, and they were passed on with the “thrust of the story”, it doesn’t make the stories true.

            Nick: In comparison to other works of literature, the Gospels are extremely early and in fact, the information I’ve given on death, burial, and appearances can all be found in 1 Cor. 15. In fact, not only are they found there, scholars today across the board hold that Paul is citing an ancient tradition that at the latest dates to within 2-5 years of the event. This is ablip in the ancient world.

            Reply: “Across the board” is an argument only a theist scholar would claim. Talk about confirmation bias. I could give you a list of many scholars that do not believe that. And even if they did, that would not constitute evidence of a resurrection.

            Nick: And as for being second and thirdhand accounts, you need to be able to interact with the claims found in Richard Bauckham’s massive work “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” that show the Gospels are in fact eyewitness accounts.

            Reply: There you go again with the “in fact”. You really need to look up the definition of fact vs. opinion. Bold claims, such as resurrection, require strong evidence, not opinion. “Scholarly opinion” does not equal “proof”, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

            Nick: Now if you want, we can compare all that information to the claims of Bigfoot, UFOs, and the Loch-Ness Monster and we’ll see which one comes out on top. Note also that even if they were similar, it would not explain away the data collected by leading scholars.

            Reply: Ironically, there are more firsthand eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster than there are for the claimed resurrection of Jesus. While these accounts are interesting and have far more physical artifacts to make their claims than the resurrection, they are still not accepted because they are not proof of anything by scientific standards. And these accounts have happened within my lifetime. Scholars can trace back many things in the historical record. What they cannot do, however, is provide evidence for a resurrection. The best they can do is provide evidence of claims, and evidence of claims is a far cry from proof of resurrection.

          • Kristian Alekov

            I don’t think you understand what atheism is:
            http://www.lackofbelief.com/

          • Mike

            Agnosticism: I don’t know if there is or is not a God. Atheism: There is no God. Can you share how there are the same?

          • Bill

            That is not a correct definition. Let me help you understand it so you can see properly what I mean.
            Atheism: Without belief.
            Agnosticism: Without knowledge.
            I am an agnostic atheist because I don’t believe in a god, but also admit that I cannot know if there is no god. Gnosticism deals with knowledge, and theism deals with belief. Belief and knowledge aren’t the same.

          • Kristian Alekov

            Nick, I’ve read quite a few of your posts, you are very good at asking for sources and proofs. I’m yet to see any sources in support of any of your arrogant statements. Makes you look quite ignorant to be honest. I’m quite sure for every passage you quote from the Bible I can quote you back 10 of them either contradicting it, or much worse as examples. The game you are playing has been played for 2,000 years now, nothing new. Read a second book and come back to argue…One half ass read book is not enough.

          • whiskeytangofox

            What put me off about his speech is the part about God being responsible for his successful career and all the opportunities he’s had. It nauseates me the same way as when professional athletes thank God for their win, or their touchdown, or their home run. To say something like that would indicate a belief that God actually personally intervenes in our individual lives, which would also by default indicate a belief that while thousands of innocent children were being eaten alive by cancer, God was making sure that you got that acting part you were hoping for. It is arrogant to the point of being obscene.

          • Jan Jeske

            Because only a just and loving god would make sure you got that juicy part, but let millions of innocent children die of starvation. Nice guy, this god of yours. If he did exist, I’d spit in his face.

          • Tex Dyess

            Again, I ask. Would you spit in the face of Ala? Do you spit in the face of Muslims? Or is it just Christians?

          • Kristian Alekov

            yes. But where did the whole spitting come from? What are we talking about again? Delusions?

          • p356

            It’s the same as people quoting Nietzsche, Ghandi, Ziglar, etc. people are just backing up their arguments with who they feel has a good point from their worldview. But yes, some Christians do it out of manipulation instead of love (like many non-Christians too…hmmmm). Humans….

          • Bill

            My path to atheism was a result of reading the bible for myself.

          • Jay

            You are absolutely batshit insane.

          • Jacquelyn Myers

            No Nick, all you need is faith and understanding comes from just simply accepting God’s grace.

          • Bill

            I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12).

          • DoseofReality

            What is your point in quoting this? You are taking a single verse, out of a larger context which was meant to teach a lesson. This is the most pathetic kind of “argument” and it’s shameful, really.

          • Bill

            Shall I quote the whole “context”? What does that verse mean? Please, do tell me why that is “pathetic”, since it was written by your god.
            What is shameful is that Christians don’t even know what is really in the bible. They just follow the shepherd who speaks in the church.

          • DoseofReality

            You’re right. Most Christians don’t. Most Christians are content to go to church, listen to their pastor, and feel good about themselves for ‘doing the right thing.’ Also pathetic.

            Your throwing a verse out with, presumably, the intent to provoke argument with how awful the Bible is – that is what is pathetic. If you are going to argue something, at least be man enough to quote something and then clearly make a point.

            That verse sits within a larger context of refuting those at the time it was written who claimed that gender roles were the result of sin: male authority in the church and in the home, and the women’s childbearing role. Those who said this believed that Christ had eradicated those roles. They were wrong because the roles were there from the beginning. Men were created to be leaders and take charge, and women were created to be helpers. Despite being equal, they had different roles, and trying to invert or usurp those roles had very real consequences. Like Adam and Eve. Which, as I’m sure you know, follows in that Timothy passage.

          • Bill

            So god changed his mind over time? You are correct that quoted that verse to demonstrate that the bible is bad. It should be tossed away for more contemporary scholars.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            You could do what I did and talk to a female scholar on the issue of Christianity and women.

            http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2014/02/22/deeper-waters-women-in-the-nt

            Yeah. She addressed that verse when a critic brought it up specifically.

          • Bill

            I was once a Christian apologist too. I can revise and reinterpret scriptures all day long. But it is arguing over something that is proof of nothing in the first place.
            I believe the bible is simply wrong on matters of morality, and has very little to teach people in this era. I would much rather consider books that were not written in the bronze age. If there is a god who is omniscient and omnipotent, I would have to conclude that his teachings didn’t end in that era.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Or you could interact with the argument presented.

            I see you’re using a personal testimony. Does it work better now that you’re an atheist than it does when you were a Christian?

          • Bill

            Because matters of belief are all personal, I can firmly state that it works the same. Beliefs are not things we choose. They are the end result of personal experience. I can tell you that I am a much happier person today than I was living in fear of hellfire and torture for sins. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools and later attended a Christian college. I believed things very differently then, because my knowledge was limited to the views of other people. When I decided to learn for myself, my beliefs changed. Faith is a poor mechanism for founding beliefs. It is proof of nothing and can be a very dangerous thing. The only thing that faith ever did for me was both create and alleviate fear.
            If there is an argument for the existence of a god (or gods) or specifically, a Christian god, please present the argument for that existence. I don’t argue that he/she/it doesn’t exist. I argue that there is no proof of existence. Without proof, the only reason I would believe in a god would be faith based on fear.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Ah yes. Well your testimony is unconvincing to me, especially since you have a modern definition of faith that is not at all what pistis meant in the ancient world. I see you held to your worldview for reasons of fear more than anything else. That’s too bad. I hold mine because of evidence and so far, you haven’t presented anything other than your own subjective opinion. Why should I take that seriously based on just a personal testimony?

          • Bill

            So far you have provided no evidence. I have plenty of evidence to support my belief in many things. My worldview has nothing to do with fear.
            If you truly have evidence, please state it. Everyone has a personal testimony, as do you. You state you have evidence to believe, yet you clearly do not. You have faith. And attempting to deflect from an obvious definition by “ancient” interpretations won’t save you from still believing in something without evidence. Your testimony is not convincing to me either.
            Please, one piece of evidence. Just one.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Oh I have presented evidence. I’ve pointed to the resurrection of Jesus as a case that can be made historiographically and to the first way of Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God.

          • Bill

            There is no proof of the resurrection, and Thomas Aquinas had an argument for the existence of god, but it is not evidence. It is based on a lack of understanding of physics and science, and certainly a neat philosophical exercise. But it is proof of nothing.

          • Kristian Alekov

            You have presented evidence? Maybe that works for the naive followers, it doesn’t work for anyone that knows anything about theology. The five ways of Aquinas have been refuted long time ago, and no sane person every brings them into a theological argument. Here, enjoy:

            I. First Way: The Argument from Motion

            This argument has committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question. This argument posited more questions than answers. Aquinas concluded that the first mover must be God. However, what motivated God to make the first move? Although motion cannot have infinite regression, this argument assumed that God had been either not moving from infinity or he has been moving ever since. What then is the source of his energy? If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?

            Cosmologically, it can also be equally valid that an impersonal, unconscious force or energy was the first unmoved mover. For instance, according to the Big Bag Theory, all motions, space, energy and matter can be traced back to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory is supported by measurable and verifiable parameters such as the rate of expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distances between galaxies.

          • Kristian Alekov

            lmao. You hold your beliefs because of evidence? You may want to talk and spread that new information to your co-believers that were not aware of any existing evidence when it comes to these issues. You may be the first person I see trying to argue theism with evidence. Pretty funny and scary crazy at the same time..

          • Ryan T. Hughes

            The problem is you are believing in a fairly tale and then want us to take you seriously.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            That is your claim. Do you have evidence that it is a fairy tale? Or do you just want me to trust you by faith?

          • DevilDog Ding

            Test all things and hold fast to that which is good. (I Thess 5). The best scholarship on the issue is that which holds to truth as revealed in Scripture, to which nothing may be added or subtracted (somewhere in Ecclesiastes). Everything else is heresy or false religion.

          • mary bur

            wont do any good unless your heart is open nick! si tell you what watch here in the near future you will hear from god! watch an listen cause you asked. guarentee it!

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No idea why you’re telling this to me. I’m a Christian theist….

          • Steven

            The idea that a god needed to have created everything yet accept that god was “always there” is a sort of double standard that I never heard a Theist try to explain. If a god could always be then why not the universe. Also Theists generally are against concepts just because they go against dogma of said religion without even really understanding it (e.g. evolution) Also many will try to force their own beliefs onto others and at the same time force any competing beliefs or theory’s out (e.g.evolution or the big bang) There are other things I could say, but shall leave it at that for now. Not saying you do any of those things or accept them, but enough do that it is a big enough problem.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            The question of why the universe could not be eternal is a good one. FIrst off, I am fully prepared to accept it could hypothetically be. I think much of modern science has shown that is not likely, but let’s suppose that it is. (Even Aquinas said reason cannot demonstrate the universe had a beginning.)

            If the universe is eternal, my theism has no problem whatsoever. The question is, does the universe contain in itself the principle of its own existing.

            Use this thought analogy. Picture a mirror that eternally exists. Now picture a man who eternally exists and this man is eternally standing in front of this mirror. Is the image in the mirror eternal? Yes. Is the image in the mirror still dependent on the man? Yes. It’s existing relies on the man being there despite both being eternal.

            The universe is the same way. It cannot be the principle of its own existing because it is material and matter always possesses both act and potency. Whatever possesses potency depends on another for its existing since it is always undergoing change. It moves from one mode of existing to another and is thus dependent. God, on the other hand, is pure actuality and depends on nothing else for His existing, as well as the fact that His essence is absolutely simple, unlike the universe.

            As for evolution, don’t know and don’t care. It bears no relevance to theism or Christian truth claims.

          • mufc

            “As for evolution, don’t know and don’t care. It bears no relevance to theism or Christian truth claims.”

            I see, if it proves part of the Bible wrong, then simply ignore it and call it unimportant.

          • Adam Renfro

            Oh, now you need proof. Just have faith he’s right.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. I always go by evidence. That’s also why I reject the New atheist redefinition of faith.

          • Adam Renfro

            That’s great. Now stop redefining theist. For a theist, it’s ultimately a matter of faith, in spite of evidence.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. There is not a single Lexicon that defines pistis, the word translated as faith, in that way. That might be what your new atheist preachers say, but they’re as blind as the fundamentalist preachers they condemn.

          • Adam Renfro

            Oh, that’s too bad because it makes it look like you have no idea what you’re talking about and that you’re making it up as you go.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            I suppose that’s what it looks like if you haven’t bothered to consult any Lexicons or done any research on your own. ENjoy being a person of “faith.” I’ll continue being one of evidence.

          • Adam Renfro

            Zing! Got me. You used quotation marks. That’s some evidence right there.

          • Kristian Alekov

            Can’t believe this guy. Keeps talking about evidence in religion, and in the same paragraph suggest consulting any Lixicons. Hilarious. Off the deep end. However, he must sound very knowledgable to anyone that has read through half a bilbe in their life.

          • gbbylou2u

            You call your leader a shepherd. I’m pretty sure that makes you a sheep.

          • pall2027

            no one can convince you, because you are a theist !

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No arguments again. Just an assertion. I guess the atheists want me to take it by faith. Well sorry. I prefer to go by evidence and facts, something atheists lost sight of a long time ago.

          • Jk

            There is more evidence of the lack of a god than there is on a god actually existing. However the issue lies in the burdon of proof. When Most Theists are presentended with evidence that contradicts their belief structure, they simply shrug it off as a test of faith. Radio carbon dating. Cobalt dating. Big bang science, string theory. All of these sciences and testing procedures prove the bible wrong on many counts.

          • Vic Hanes

            Yes JK everything just “Happened” Your a special kind of stupid aren’t you? When you are taking your last breath here on earth and tears are streaming down your face I hope you will feel and see God thru the eyes of your loved ones gathered around you..

          • Jk

            Gotta love that good christian acceptance you’re taught. Loving thy neighbor and all that. The sad part is that just as Ken Ham said what it would take to change his mind.” Nothing” but when it comes to an atheist all it would take is proof. Yet theists can’t provide a single shred of evidence. Yet the burden of proof is always shifted to atheists. How is it our responsibility to CONTINUE to prove you wrong ? It’s been done many times over.Yet people still cling to the small chance we’re wrong. And you know what Vic. I’m willing to take Pascals Wager. I have no doubt that your “just and loving god” will forgive me, as your book claims he will.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            jk. No evidence Alright? I’ll use two arguments and just two at the start.

            The first will be the first way of Thomas Aquinas.

            The second will be the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

          • Jk

            Wait let me stop you right there. What is your physical evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead ? Also let me pose you this question.

            Do you believe in Santa Clause ? this isn’t a joke question. I’m asking it with complete seriousness.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. I don’t believe in Santa Claus. I instead believe in the historical figure of Saint Nicholas who had a mythos built around him.

            For the resurrection of Jesus, I would recommend reading some of the best scholarship such as Michael Licona’s “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” or N.T. Wright’s “The Resurrection of the Son of God.”

            I would also encourage acceptance of basic facts about Jesus to be explained.

            For instance, the crucifixion.

            “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of
            crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a
            deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further
            here.” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” Page 17.)

            Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as
            messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his
            crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief
            “stumbling block” for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition
            come from? It must have actually happened. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A
            Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages
            221-222)

            Jesus was executed by crucifixion, which was a
            common method of torture and execution used by the Romans. (Dale Martin, New
            Testament History and Literature. Page 181)

            That Jesus was executed because he or someone
            else was claiming that he was the king of the Jews seems to be historically
            accurate. (ibid. 186)

            Jesus’ execution is as historically certain as
            any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details
            that fill out the story? (John Dominic Crossan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-d…_b_847504.html)

            I think I should stop and ask if you dispute the opinion of leading scholars before going further.

          • Poopdeck Pappy

            The historical case for the resurrection? Considering the lack of evidence that Jesus even existed I’d like to see that. But please before you pull out your Bible and start quoting scripture as evidence please be prepared to tell us who wrote whatever you are quoting and when.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Oh I am, but no scholar today that is peer-reviewed and teaching at an accredited university takes Christ-mythicism seriously. You might as well claim that the Earth is flat to a convention of geologists.

            So let’s start with the historical Jesus then.

            Tacitus in the Annals in 15.44. Seutonious’s statements about riots. Josephus in two references and yes, one of them has some interpolation but the leading Josephus scholars, like Feldman, hold that there are actual parts there Josephus did write. Lucian’s reference to Jesus. Pliny the Younger wrote about the Christians and their worship of Christ. Mara Bar-Serapion wrote about Jesus. And of course, we have four Gospels and the epistles and before you dismiss the Gospels, consider this:

            If historians want to know what Jesus said and
            did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their
            principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or
            theological reasons–for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted.
            It is for historical reasons pure and simple. Ehrman, The New Testament, page
            215)

          • Poopdeck Pappy

            First of all I did not claim
            Jesus was not a historical figure. Only that there wasn’t much in the way of
            evidence to support such a claim. As far as Tacitus goes he was born
            more than 20 years after the date generally given for the crucifixion of
            Christ. Neither was Suetonius
            or Pliny the Younger who both wrote about followers of Christ
            but not about Jesus himself. I don’t know anyone who disputes the fact that
            there were Christians in the late 1st Century. Lucian too
            writes of Christians not of Christ. He wasn’t born for nearly 100 years after
            the crucifixion. Mara Bar-Serapion writes of a wise king or king of the
            Jews. Many interpret his statement that he lives through his wise teachings to
            contradict Christian claims of a physical resurrection. As you yourself have
            already stated some of the writings attributed to Josephus are in
            dispute. It is generally accepted at some of the passages were altered. Once
            again though Josephus was born after Christ. Neither he nor any of the
            others you mentioned knew Jesus or even someone who knew Jesus. They knew only
            of the followers of Jesus.

            The prevailing theory in
            Biblical scholarship on the origins of the Gospels is the Two-Document hypothesis.
            It states that Mark along with another lost source called Q which was probably
            just a collection of sayings served as a source for Mathew and Luke. We know
            that the oldest copies of Mark do not include an account of the resurrection.
            They end at 16-9. If Mark was the source document for Mathew and Luke, and it
            did not include a reference to the resurrection then anything that follows the
            empty tomb is not reliable.

          • DoseofReality

            Should probably brush up on your history. The Romans kept records of everything, and if you’ve watched even a couple of laughable history channel tv shows with historical scholars on there, they agree Jesus existed. The debate has always been whether he’s the Son of God.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            To be fair, we don’t have these Roman Records anywhere. It’s not the best to appeal to them.

          • DoseofReality

            Tacitus?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Tacitus was certainly the greatest Roman historian, but he did not have access to all records that would be available. Even if the Romans kept these records, we no longer have them in existence. Still, the case for the historical Jesus is firmly sound. Only those who are most ignorant about history would say Jesus never existed.

          • Kristian Alekov

            You are certifiably insane!!! Thomas Aquinas’ arguments were made at a time when science didn’t even exist. They have been refuted numerous times, no one even takes them serious anymore or brings them into conversation. Just use simple google if you will…

            Resurrection of Jesus as a proof? Are you crazy?? There is NO evidence, you are quoting the bible to support something from the bible, funny as hell..

          • DoseofReality

            Evidence, please? If you’re willing to make claims like this, please back it up. How does dating of Earth materials disprove the Bible? How does the Big Bang Theory disprove the Bible? How does String Theory disprove the Bible? You make a hugely encompassing claim that there is more evidence for a lack of God, yet you offer none of that proof yourself.

          • Tom Howell

            How exactly have atheists lost sight of evidence and facts? There is absolutely zero evidence for a god. None. The difference between theists and atheists was summed up perfectly during the debate at the Creationist Museum:

            Moderator: “What if anything would change your mind?”

            Ham: “I’m a Christian…no, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true”

            Nye: “We would need just one piece of evidence”

            Nye could have dropped the mic and walked off the stage at that point. That perfectly sums up the difference between theists and atheists

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Tom. It’s been lost sight of because I’ve had atheists here telling me my belief is a delusion and there is no evidence but when I ask them for a source, I don’t get one. I have been presented with no evidence. I’ve just been presented with statements of faith.

            And Ken Ham is such a straw man. I think you’d find more Christians oppose him than support him. I personally had high hopes that a blizzard would come through and block people from wasting their time on that travesty of a debate which I’m not even going to bother watching.

          • Travis McCoy

            “I prefer to go by evidence and facts, something atheists lost sight of a long time ago.”

            And where is your fact snakes talk, virgins give birth, people walk on water, people turn into salt, a person lives in the belly of a whale? And Atheists lost sight of evidence and facts? Ha ha You’re asking for a case to be made as to why there is no god, which is IMPOSSIBLE, as you can’t prove a negative… That’s like asking people to disprove bigfoot, until then, you’re illogical for NOT thinking he exists…

            Proof is on the CLAIM, and god is the claim, not disproving god…

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Travis: And where is your fact snakes talk, virgins give birth, people walk on water, people turn into salt, a person lives in the belly of a whale?

            Reply: To demonstrate these are all ipso facto nonsense, and I’m not even convinced a snake talked in the account, then you’ll need to show that miracles are impossible. Has an argument been put forward to show that? Of course miracles are impossible if there is no external agent that can do them, but that is the very question under debate so it cannot be treated like a premise.

            Now for the positive evidence of miracles, I will point to Craig Keener’s massive two-volume work “Miracles” where he lists many that have medical backing behind them. Have you gone through it yet?

            Travis: And Atheists lost sight of evidence and facts?

            Reply: Yes. Atheists I read and interact with have not bothered interacting with the other side. They have presumed that they are people of reason and have no need to investigate. Hence someone like P.Z. Myers uses “The Courtier’s Reply.”

            Travis: Ha ha You’re asking for a case to be made as to why there is no god, which is IMPOSSIBLE, as you can’t prove a negative… That’s like asking people to disprove bigfoot, until then, you’re illogical for NOT thinking he exists…

            Reply: If it’s impossible to prove a negative, then you have a problem. First off, the claim “You cannot prove a negative” is a claim that is treated as if it is an absolute truth. But if that is the case, then it has been proven that a negative can be proven. That is, you have demonstrated the negative statement that you cannot demonstrate a negative statement. It is self-refuting. A little moment’s reflection would have shown you that. Again, this is what happens when you lose sight of evidence and facts.

            Since it is not a proven then, then it is indeed hypothetically possible to prove a negative, and many atheist critiques have been that. For instance, the problem of evil is meant to demonstrate that there is no God. The idea that there are contradictions in the nature of God is meant to prove that there is no God. The idea of supposed contradictions in the Bible is meant to prove a negative, that the Bible is not from God.

            So do you really want to stand behind this idea that you cannot prove a negative?

            Now as for Bigfoot, I would simply say I do not see strong evidence yet, but until then, I’m not off on a crusade against Bigfoot. I’m also aware that Bigfoot has far fewer ontological implications than God does.

            Travis: Proof is on the CLAIM, and god is the claim, not disproving god…

            Reply: Well I’ll give the same two I gave above. The first will be the first way of Aquinas. The second will be the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

          • Bill

            The first way of Aquinas is a logical fallacy. When you can demonstrate that something moved god before he became the infinite mover, then your argument might mean something. It is not proof. It is a philosophical argument.
            And, still waiting for that proof of the resurrection of Jesus.

          • Michael Wright

            uhm book written by sheep herders 3000 years ago…pretty simple really

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, most of the writers would not have been shepherds since shepherds would not invest in the education for literacy. Still, this is actually a racist kind of comment to make and an argument ad annis. Do you have a real argument or not?

          • Akash Hirosh

            hi nick, you seem to be replying to selective comments, specifically ones that are not asking hard questions. whenever someone brings up the fact that the burden of proof lies with the claim you just ignore the comment and move on. It is your claim that god exists. what is the proof? Do you have ANY? anything tangible, anything that can be observed or tested by a third party to arrive at the same result? I mean isnt faith by DEFINITION believing in something without proof? Then why this hypocritical stance of you being someone who deals with FACTS? you don’t have any, which is the very reason why you are depending on faith.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            Akash can you prove God does not exist?

          • juanaguilar

            It doesn’t work that way. The burden of proof is on you. If I came in here saying rocks can talk, for example, I’d have to prove that. It would be ridiculous for me to say to you, “well, prove rocks can’t talk.” No proof exists that they can, so the burden of proof would be on me, as the person claiming they can. This is basic logic.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            You leave out the most important and basic tenet of a spiritual life….. Faith.

          • CynicalAtheist

            You cannot prove it does.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            Exactly. So why is it so important for you to prove you are right?

          • CynicalAtheist

            Why must you prove you are? It appears we both believe we are right in our own thinking. Impasse.

          • Akash Hirosh

            can you prove that there is no invisible monster sitting next to you. Oh btw he cannot be EVER seen by human methods of investigation. Try proving that he is not there, then you might understand my point.

          • Bill

            Nobody can prove a god (or gods) doesn’t exist. And nobody can prove existence. You can certainly believe. But since there is no evidence for it, you are taking it on faith–a belief without proof.
            The burden of proof lies with the person who claims god exists.

          • Rab Simpson

            There’s no need, atheism makes no truth claims, just expresses a lack of conviction that the claims of the religious regarding their deities are true.

            Do you believe that Zeus exists? If not, why not? This is why atheists don’t believe in your deity.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            I never asked anyone here, in any of my comments to believe. I just would like to know why you feel the need to convince me not to believe. Why can’t I have faith in an unseen power greater than myself If that gives me peace, if that belief guides me to love be kind to others?

          • Rab Simpson

            I don’t feel the need to convince you. I do however, feel the need to stop theists from trying to make the lives of everyone who doesn’t buy into their little cult a misery, something which is extremely common amongst the christian right wing. These people seem to revel in trying to push their nonsense on absolutely everyone in a concerted effort to create a theocracy, something which can only ever work in favour of one sect and screws everyone else.

            “Why can’t I have faith in an unseen power greater than myself If that gives me peace, if that belief guides me to love be kind to others?”

            If you need an imaginary father figure to be at peace and not be nervous about being a responsible adult, have at it, just don’t force any children you might have into having the same shortcoming, teach them to be responsible human beings who aren’t reliant on an imaginary friend who’ll make everything better if they mess things up.

            Additionally, if you need to believe in something for no good reason (faith isn’t a reason, it’s the lack of reason) so you can love and be kind to other people, you must not be a very nice person in the first place. Personally I find “treating other people poorly is a bad thing, don’t do it” much simpler (thanks to human empathy, a product of the survival instinct, itself a product of our successful evolution) without any requirement to give money to any organisation which doesn’t contribute any taxes to society or worship a character in a book which has unspeakable atrocities attributed to it.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            “I don’t feel the need to convince you. I do however, feel the need to stop theists from trying to make the lives of everyone who doesn’t buy into their little cult a misery, something which is extremely common amongst the christian right wing.”
            From the book of Rab Simpson 3:14

            Oh I get it! You are just trying to save me from being a Christian. Okay, now you make sense. You are going out into the world witnessing for your religion of Atheism to save people from……? OMG(osh)

            Whooweee…. If not for you… I coulda almost felled into dat trap o dem danged evile Christians! I am sooooo stoopid and you so intylectial. Dat da way dem soopid Christians talk ain’t it? Rab?

          • Rab Simpson

            You really are a simple sort, aren’t you? Do you take every mention of something which doesn’t align with your fairy tale world view as a personal attack?

            I’m not trying to save you from anything. Right now, with the nonsense you’re spewing, you’re part of the problem.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            “Do you take every mention of something which doesn’t align with your fairy tale world view as a personal attack?” Do you Rab?

            What type of robes do wear when your preaching? Do you have a “Very Pious” look on your face too? Especially when you say “I do however, feel the need to stop theists from trying to make the lives of everyone who doesn’t buy into their LITTLE CULT a misery, something which is extremely common amongst the christian right wing.”

            Hmmmm, sorry I mistook this as a personal attack. You fooled me.

            Oh well, like I said before, I am sooooo stoopid and you so intylectial. Your free now to worship your “no-god” God, go in peace brother Rab.

          • Rab Simpson

            It is a little cult. It might have a lot of members, but the key word wasn’t ‘little’, it was ‘cult’. The collection of religions known as christianity is a group of death cults. This is clear to anyone who hasn’t been conned into believing the nonsense christian preachers like to regurgitate at any given moment.

            Additionally, if you took my referring to the cult you’re a member of as a cult as a personal attack, you have some work to do in understanding where christianity ends and where you begin. I don’t take the negative things people who believe in fairies say about atheism personally, I just correct them, but sadly their cognitive bias likes to get in the way and they lose their mind and either start going overboard or start getting sarcastic as if they think they’re more intelligent than the rational, non-fairy believing person that they’re speaking to.

            Keep drinking that kool aid.

          • Dennis Crabtree

            “christianity is a group of death cults”
            “the nonsense christian preachers like to regurgitate”
            “you have some work to do in understanding”
            “I don’t take the negative things people who believe in fairies say about atheism personally, I just correct them”
            “their cognitive bias likes to get in the way and they lose their mind and either start going overboard or start getting sarcastic as if they think they’re more intelligent than the rational, non-fairy believing person that they’re speaking to.”

            I got tired of cutting and pasting the Rab attack, because your whole last post was nothing but negative I can see you are very serious about saving me from Christianity and converting me to your religion of atheism. If you were honest and not so angry you could re-read our conversation and see who is aggressively pushing for acceptance of a specific point of view. I know you won’t and if you did re-read you would never be convinced, that’s just the way zealots are.

            P.S. I like the blue/berry koolaid. Yum.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Hi Akash, thanks for demonstrating your lack of serious research on the topic.

            Akash: hi nick, you seem to be replying to selective comments, specifically ones that are not asking hard questions.

            Reply: That must be why I replied to the problem of evil. Obviously, that’s a simple question. Everyone is supposed to answer that before breakfast.

            Akash: whenever someone brings up the fact that the burden of proof lies with the claim you just ignore the comment and move on.

            Reply: No I don’t> I in fact agree with it. People show up claiming that I am believing a delusion and that God does not exist. Okay. They made the claim. It is up to them to back it. Suppose I am incapable of proving the claim that God exists. Does it follow that God does not exist? Not at all. I could be incapable of proving my claim, but it does not mean my opponents have proven theirs by default. Let’s suppose for instance I am unable to prove the claim that there are aliens on another planet somewhere. Does that mean then that there are no aliens? No.

            Akash: It is your claim that god exists. what is the proof? Do you have ANY?

            Reply: I will use just two arguments at the start. The first is the first way of Thomas Aquinas. The second is the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

            Akash: anything tangible, anything that can be observed or tested by a third party to arrive at the same result?

            Reply: If you mean scientific, then no. This is not a question of science. Science can provide data, but the final conclusion comes from metaphysics. To use science in this way is to treat it as if it can answer everything. That’s like going to the beach with a metal detector to find a treasure map and saying it’s not there because the detector never went off. The detector is great at finding metals. It’s not so great at finding paper.

            Akash: I mean isnt faith by DEFINITION believing in something without proof?

            Reply: No. The Greek word translated as faith is in fact pistis. It refers to trust in what has been shown to be reliable. If you think it means believing without proof, then find a Greek or NT Lexicon that lists that as the definition of pistis. The following is a scholarly source on the meaning of faith in the NT.

            Faith/Faithfulness

            “These terms refer to the value of
            reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and
            qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal
            relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal
            faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well
            as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that
            binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally
            rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it
            works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and
            the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p.
            72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

            Your definition comes from bogus sources like Dawkins, Harris, and Boghossian. None of the new atheists ever cite Lexicons. I know. I’ve read them.

            Akash: Then why this hypocritical stance of you being someone who deals with FACTS? you don’t have any, which is the very reason why you are depending on faith.

            Reply: Because I do deal with facts and I find this ironic since you don’t have any in this post. YOur claim about the definition of faith is simply based on your accepting it by “faith” as it were from new atheists without doing any real research on your own. Go to a library or seminary and get a Lexicon and get started. I have presented my arguments, which is ironic because no one here saying God is a delusion has presented any evidence.

          • Akash Hirosh

            1.) All you are doing is reversing the argument, you still dont accept that the claim is that god exists. i am not saying that god doesnt exist, i am saying that there is no veryfiable proof that one exists right now, and thus it would be illogical to assume there is one. It is not the same as aliens, because the assumption that aliens might exist on other planets are backed by our understanding of how life started on earth. This is then put through computation and permutation to the number of possible worlds in the universe that which leads to a reasonable assumption that aliens might exist. (btw, it is still not accepted that they do)

            2.) Aquinas’s argument is a logical loop. If everything NEEDS to have a cause, then what is the cause of god? why are you assigning an imaginary being to be the first cause of everything? isn’t it more logical and humble to admit that we dont YET fully understand? That we are still learning more and more and getting closer to the truth? Why is god exempt from this rule? Did god come out of nothing? wouldn’t that be contradicting your own argument?

            3.) THE HISTORICAL CASE OF JESUS RISING FROM THE DEAD? are you serious? This is documented history from the time period when people still didnt understand basic science. I think it is safe to assume that the documentation is 100% accurate considering all the flourish and exaggerated facts. If you are going to take religious texts to be historic facts then why dont you consider Krishna? He was the avatar of god on earth sent to save the world and protect the rightous and convert the sinners. he even shares the same birthday as jesus (original). Why not thor? why not hercules? If krishna is right then pretty much the entire bible philosophy is wrong because the the core beliefs of the hindu philosphy is completely in contrast with christians. Hinduism is about the cycle of life and the inevitability of change. Your morality is what you set for yourself. it doesnt hold you accountable as sinners, and the whole point of life according to it is to live as many lives as needed till you find absolution, it doesnt really consider sins the same way christianity does. Why then do you chose one ‘historical text’ and not the other? THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. This is evidence the same way me saying LOTR is evidence for the fact that Sauron actually exists. And guess what, you cant prove me wrong, because you CANT DISPROVE A NEGATIVE!

            4. nothing scientific? do you mean no facts? because all facts, ARE SCIENTIFIC!!! that is what makes it a fact or evidence. its ability to be TESTED BY ANY THIRD PARTY ANYWHERE!!! that is the cornerstone of PROVING SOMETHING! The proof has to hold through EVERYWHERE! Thus making it SCIENTIFIC!

            you are not providing an answer. When we ask how the world is created, we say we dont fully yet and we search further. We work tirelessly to find more learn more and understand more. And as we do that we improve the lives of humans all over the world , advance civilization and why, make this very conversation over the internet possible. Because scientists know that we dont know yet. and they want to know.

            your answer is : ” oh we knew it 2000 years backs, see , these guys wrote it in a book and everything. oh no we cant test it but BELIEVE ME it is 100% true, no chance of mistakes. ALSO it is better than all the other similar books from the 100s of other cultures from all over the world. And no we cant test it scientifically. So stop searching for the answer people! we already know everything. ”

            this is a detriment to the human race.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            In comes Akash again in a full display of atheistic ignorance!

            Akash: 1.) All you are doing is reversing the argument, you still dont accept that the claim is that god exists. i am not saying that god doesnt exist, i am saying that there is no veryfiable proof that one exists right now, and thus it would be illogical to assume there is one. It is not the same as aliens, because the assumption that aliens might exist on other planets are backed by our understanding of how life started on earth. This is then put through computation and permutation to the number of possible worlds in the universe that which leads to a reasonable assumption that aliens might exist. (btw, it is still not accepted that they do)

            Reply: Actually, no. I showed up here and started seeing people making the claim that God is a delusion and doesn’t exist. At that point, my argument was negative. It was asking them to prove their claim. You see, I have this strange idea that when people make a claim of any sort, that they should back it. Do you disagree? Do you think an atheist can make a claim that God doesn’t exist and if the theist he’s talking to for some reason fails to provide evidence that God exists, then it is the case that God doesn’t exist? I don’t think that’s rational. After all, it could be that the theist is just someone who believes blindly and does not have those reasons. It could be the atheist is a poor thinker and can’t understand the reasons that are given. Now if you think that one doesn’t need to back a claim such as the one that God doesn’t exist, then I will just claim that God exists and say I don’t need to back it.

            Akash: 2.) Aquinas’s argument is a logical loop. If everything NEEDS to have a cause, then what is the cause of god? why are you assigning an imaginary being to be the first cause of everything? isn’t it more logical and humble to admit that we dont YET fully understand? That we are still learning more and more and getting closer to the truth? Why is god exempt from this rule? Did god come out of nothing? wouldn’t that be contradicting your own argument?

            Reply: Once again, someone else who does not bother to read the argument. Where does Aquinas say everything needs a cause? He doesn’t. Hint. He says motion needs a cause. What does He mean by motion? He means the changing of potency to actuality. This is also passive potency. This means that anything that receives motion depends on something else for the motion that it has. The reason there needs to be a terminus to this is because if all you have is instrumental causes, then nothing ever really happens as instruments are secondary. It is like saying you have a host of secondary causes but no primary causes. THat’s like saying a paintbrush could paint a picture by itself if you just made the handle long enough. Instead, Aquinas says to explain motion, you need something that is the cause of motion but it itself is not the recipient of motion. Why not? IT has not passive potency.

            Akash: 3.) THE HISTORICAL CASE OF JESUS RISING FROM THE DEAD? are you serious? This is documented history from the time period when people still didnt understand basic science. I think it is safe to assume that the documentation is 100% accurate considering all the flourish and exaggerated facts.

            Reply: I assume nothing. I look to the works of leading scholarship. As for not understanding basic science, you might be surprised, but in the ancient world, they buried the dead, because they knew the dead weren’t coming back. They knew virgins didn’t naturally give birth. They knew that paralyzed people don’t naturally get up and walk. They knew people don’t naturally walk on water. Why do you think they built boats?

            Akash: If you are going to take religious texts to be historic facts then why dont you consider Krishna? He was the avatar of god on earth sent to save the world and protect the rightous and convert the sinners. he even shares the same birthday as jesus (original).

            Reply: Oh really? Do provide some historical documentation on when Krishna lived and when he was born? Do find a primary source that shows he was born on December 25th? We have no external evidence that Krishna is a historical figure. We have plenty for Jesus. See works like Robert Van Voorst’s “Jesus outside the NT.”

            Akash: Why not thor? why not hercules?

            Reply: TEll you what, you find the historical information on these two telling me the exact time and place that they lived and I’ll see about it. Meanwhile, I’ll compare it to the evidence for Jesus. Let’s see who comes out on top. Alright?

            Akash: If krishna is right then pretty much the entire bible philosophy is wrong because the the core beliefs of the hindu philosphy is completely in contrast with christians. Hinduism is about the cycle of life and the inevitability of change. Your morality is what you set for yourself. it doesnt hold you accountable as sinners, and the whole point of life according to it is to live as many lives as needed till you find absolution, it doesnt really consider sins the same way christianity does.

            Reply: Well at least you got something right.

            Akash: Why then do you chose one ‘historical text’ and not the other? THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE.

            Reply; Because one does have evidence backing it and the other doesn’t. Even non-Christian and atheist scholars will tell you numerous facts that we know about the historical Jesus. Do you not read any scholarship? Oh wait. No need to answer that question. I already know the answer.

            Akash: This is evidence the same way me saying LOTR is evidence for the fact that Sauron actually exists. And guess what, you cant prove me wrong, because you CANT DISPROVE A NEGATIVE!

            Reply: Actually, you can. Suppose you go into my office and claim there are no ladybugs in my office. If I find one ladybug in here, then the claim is false. Negatives are disproven regularly.

            Akash: 4. nothing scientific? do you mean no facts? because all facts, ARE SCIENTIFIC!!! that is what makes it a fact or evidence. its ability to be TESTED BY ANY THIRD PARTY ANYWHERE!!!

            Reply: Plato wrote the Republic. This is not a scientific fact. You cannot test it through repeated observation. Alexander the Great conquered the world. This also cannot be proven scientifically. I married my wife on July 24th, 2010. This cannot be proven scientifically. Even more, the statement “All facts are scientific” cannot be proven scientifically. Science is an inductive process and it cannot thus speak in absolutes. It cannot make an A type statement like that in logic.

            I really think you should read a work such as Nicholas Rescher’s “The Limits of science.”

            Akash: that is the cornerstone of PROVING SOMETHING! The proof has to hold through EVERYWHERE! Thus making it SCIENTIFIC!

            Reply: Could you prove this scientifically? Then after you do that, can you prove that you proved it scientifically? Can you prove scientifically as well that science is reliable? Can you prove scientifically that there is a real world outside of your mind?

            Akash: you are not providing an answer. When we ask how the world is created, we say we dont fully yet and we search further. We work tirelessly to find more learn more and understand more. And as we do that we improve the lives of humans all over the world , advance civilization and why, make this very conversation over the internet possible. Because scientists know that we dont know yet. and they want to know.

            Reply: As we should!

            Akash: your answer is : ” oh we knew it 2000 years backs, see , these guys wrote it in a book and everything. oh no we cant test it but BELIEVE ME it is 100% true, no chance of mistakes. ALSO it is better than all the other similar books from the 100s of other cultures from all over the world. And no we cant test it scientifically. So stop searching for the answer people! we already know everything. ”

            Reply: No. That is not my answer. But you know what you do when you assume. My answer is that if we want to know how the world came into existence, then science is an excellent tool that we should all use to find out. My answer also is that I will gladly give evidence for why I believe the Bible is true and other books are not.

            Akash: this is a detriment to the human race.

            Reply: Fundy atheism like yours? Sure is!

          • DoseofReality

            Faith is believing in something you cannot see. BLIND faith is believing in something without any proof.

          • Bill

            He seems to believe that facts are the same thing as arguments. A philosophy of belief is not fact. It is a belief. I have encountered many people who throw out the “first way of Aquinas” as fact. It is neither fact, nor is it even a good argument. It is a philosophical belief based upon ignorance written in the 13th century when people believed the sun revolved around the earth.

          • Bill

            How is a reference to sheep herders a racist comment?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Simple, it’s making a statement about a group of people simply by way of their profession that is highly negative about their intelligence. The same applies to desert people. Do you regularly paint a group of people with one stroke like this?

          • Bill

            I don’t see how a comment about sheep herders is racist. Nobody mentioned their race. They certainly were not an educated group of people, but education does not equal intelligence. If anything, you made the leap to race that I didn’t even see. There were certainly people at that time that could be considered educated for the knowledge available in their small world. It is likely that the scriptures were not written by sheep herders, since many of the people who spread word of the prophetical teachings were nomads.

        • Nick

          Oh thank you >_< some sanity on this page…

      • JangoFret

        Honestly, how can you say that without a hint of irony?

      • OrganicGirl

        You mean the herd of wolves in sheep’s clothing….

      • mikemazzla

        Umm NO if they had clapped for that when they dont believe in a non existent god then that would have made them a herd of sheep.

        • Dennis Crabtree

          Mike why do you try so hard to force people to believe as you do? You have been very adamant about Your “non existent god”. People have to believe in something, I guess you believe in telling people they are wrong.

          To each their own.

          • mikemazzla

            The entire point of this article was the surprise that the reaction was tepid…meaning that the religious want to force people to believe…

            I never understood the people have top believe in something…I mean what does that mean? Why cant it just be that people and things live and die and that’s it and you make the most of it while you are here. Why does that scare you….why does there have to be more?

          • Loren Jon

            I don’t understand why pushy people, (atheist, Christian, etc..) have to be so militant about what they believe. You believe in nothing…. it’s still a belief even though it’s nothing. Don’t shove it down the noses of others. Why is it so hard to just let people believe what they want to believe and respect each other despite differences?

          • mikemazzla

            Because it affects the way some people govern. It affects the way people think decisions should be made that affect others. If some nut believes that gnomes live in his lawn and thus will not mow his lawn for fear of killing them..then yes he is crazy but he is living own life and it doesn’t affect me. As soon as this same nut tells me I cant mow my lawn because of that his crazy beliefs are affecting me. And that is what too many religious people are doing. Since their religion doesn’t like gay marriage they are doing all they can to force other people to also not like gay marriage.

          • Janet

            I don’t even know how to comment on this….I guess you’ve never fought any battle for yourself, your child or your country.

          • CynicalAtheist

            It is their fear of mortality… their god gives them that edge over everyone else. Christians believe they aren’t going to die after they die… it feeds into their fears, and calms them, that’s all.

          • Loren Jon

            Not all Christians believe in God simply out of fear of death.

          • CynicalAtheist

            Fear of competence, then? I have found I am lovable and capable, without a god.

          • Janet

            Fear of NOTHING…it’s common sense that everything has a beginning…now I do believe that you did come from dirt…but me…NOT

          • CynicalAtheist

            Actually I came from a pairing of my mother and father… now dirt?… that’s your god’s schtick… so, YOU came from dirt.

          • Janet

            No, you are so narrow minded…it’s not worth talking to you…I came from God…you came from the dirt…

          • Janet

            You are so wrong on so many levels…the koolaid must taste mighty good in your house.

          • CynicalAtheist

            Koolaid is so bad for you. All that sugar… Nothing but honesty in our house, no lies, no hiding the truth and no fairy tales and mythical beings, unless it’s bedtime.

          • Janet

            The whole point of this article is to show how atheist are so scared to death of Christians…..and the fact that Hollywood are made to believe they have to be atheist to make it in the industry….people, Christian people are fighting against this FINALLY!

          • CynicalAtheist

            In my opinion, christians are the ones who are deathly afraid of Atheists. They know something isn’t right about what has been shoved down their throats since the beginning and the word is spreading. It is contradictory in and of itself. Your myth is just that and social media and the internet are helping clarify that. You are fighting because you are afraid. You are losing a losing battle.

          • DoseofReality

            Christians who are poorly versed in their own faith are afraid of atheists because atheist tend to viciously attack Christian beliefs. If you have no idea why you believe what you do, this is frightening. I’m not one of those Christians. If I don’t know something, I admit I don’t know, and I try to better educate myself.

            However, I do think I have just a *bit* more class, seeing as I don’t run around saying you’re morons for believing that the universe was created out of nothing (which is scientifically impossible). Please, I would like to honestly know how you think my “myth” is contradictory in and of itself. You claim this but offer no evidence.

          • CynicalAtheist

            If by “attack” you mean “supply with facts” then, yes, I guess we are “attacking”.
            Science is evidence… protons/electrons, electrical impulses, magnetics, genetics, astology, astonomy, geology, geometry, cartography.. I am really not educated enough to list all the -ologies there are out there, but they explain a whole bunch more than the book that was written by uneducated (by today’s standards of knowledge) people who thought the world was flat and it was ok to kill your wife for looking at you the wrong way and told you how to beat your slaves. If you are christian, you subscribe to the bible. If you subscribe to the bible, you are a monster. If you only subscribe to PARTS of the bible, you are a hypocrite. I don’t want any part of the god in the bible. It is a horrible, mean, vengeful creature and it demands blood. I am a peaceful, passive human being. The bible is anything but peaceful and passive… unless you cherry-pick… which means you aren’t adhering to your religion. and you are a hypocrite.

          • DoseofReality

            You still didn’t clearly answer my question, but okay. I don’t want to argue with you, I simply wanted to know your thoughts. However, let me clear something up for you.

            I have no idea how much you know about the Bible, or how much you’ve actually read or studied, so I will explain this as if you know very little in the hopes it will make it as clear as possible. The Old Testament holds such rules as the one you cited about stoning your wife. The Old Testament’s rules were put in place as a temporary measure to punish sins. The very moment Christ died on the cross, all of those Old Testament rules became invalid, because they were no longer necessary. His death paid the price for any and all sins, so to speak.

            Therefore, no, I do not need to cherry pick from the Bible. One part of the Bible shows how everything used to exist before Christ died for the sins of mankind, and one part shows how things exist now. Do I think that stoning a prostitute is a fabulous rule? Absolutely not. Does that antiquated rule currently conflict with my faith? No, it does not. Do I have the capacity to accept the harsh reality that a perfect God cannot suffer imperfection, and will eradicate or punish it, one way or another? Yes, I do.

            Do I enjoy the thought that things used to be that way? No. But I understand that a perfect being cannot coexist with evil, and that evil merits absolute punishment. Such punishments are no longer necessary since Christ’s death, as it sated God’s “demand” for blood as you put it. If you truly follow the Bible, you understand this.

            We aren’t going to convince each other to change viewpoints, and I’m not trying to. I would simply feel remiss in my duties as a Christian to leave something wholly unexplained on an issue that you seem to have somewhat of a misunderstanding over.

          • CynicalAtheist

            But, if your christ didn’t even exist, this is all poppy-cock… His existence is in question… Not one person who wrote about him in the new testiment ever met him. As a matter of fact, there is not one single first hand encounter with jesus in regard to anyone who wrote anything about jesus… tall tales, myth, speculation and superstition.

          • DoseofReality

            In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees”

            Michael Grant (a classicist) states that “In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

            Richard A. Burridge states: “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

            Need I quote more?

          • CynicalAtheist

            Why should I fear your ridicule when I believe what I believe? I don’t allow you or anyone else to determine how I feel. I don’t own any guilt regarding my views. There is no obligation for you to feel compelled to agree with me. I don’t need to be a scholar to have come to my own conclusions: No one can prove the man existed, there is no physical, first-hand evidence. The bible is not evidence. The bible was written by man. Men’s words mean nothing because men lie and exaggerate, to their own purposes. The idea of a christ was created to substantiate the rest of the mythical stories contained in the current bible.

          • Vic Hanes

            Yes everything just “Happened” Your a special kind of stupid aren’t
            you? When you are taking your last breath here on earth and tears are
            streaming down your face I hope you will feel and see God thru the eyes
            of your loved ones gathered around you..

          • 97E

            You’re assuming he has any loved ones to gather around him.

            It has been my experience that most atheists are intolerably arrogant and entirely unlikable. Rare have I known an atheist who was not like this.

          • Janet

            We are not afraid of you…We are hoping your love of abortion makes your numbers even smaller than they are…

          • Rab Simpson

            Self delusion and ignorance of it. What a shame.

          • Janet

            Yeah, seems to me it’s you people who are deluded and sheeple…follow any crowd that wags their dirty little tail.

          • Rab Simpson

            And there it is again.

            The projection is strong in this one.

          • VoiceOfReason

            Your self righteousness is beyond contempt. Jesus would never say the things you are saying. Your demeaning tone is enough to convince me you have a personal agenda.

            To take the Lord’s name in vain is not about cursing. It is a about those who’s place himself above others by invoking the name of the Lord. Do not be vain in the Lord. Every one of your posts reflect this in your attitude and you are certainly on a direct course for hell, in front of most atheist I know.

          • Janet

            hm…self righteous….look in the mirror you silly fool…. and to the person that asked earlier..this is one of the lost that go around damning people to hell…(they think they have this power) These are the people who would chase you from God because your Gay. Don’t listen to them for they know not what they do…see they think they are the chosen ones and never have sinned and have decided they are your judge.

          • Janet

            You wish that were true but know it not to be….You’re still fighting and you’ve already lost… You are so right the word of God is spreading across the world and you are fighting to stop it by fighting to keep it out of schools etc…but it’s not working anymore. Christians are starting to stand up instead of being meek….they are fighting back and with God we will always win. :)

          • mikemazzla

            LOl we are scared of Christians? How so..if you mean we want to fight their idiocy and their discrimination yes I guess you are correct. But I hate to tell you this..Christianity is a dying breed as are most religion in the US. Young people are increasingly non believers, thats how they will raise their kids etc. Churches are closing because of declining memberships. The Churches are reaching out to latin american immigrants now more because that is where they see any hope of renewal..with a uneducated and un sophisticated mentality

          • Janet

            It might be wise to check your facts…Christianity is on the rise world wide. People are sick of all these people trying to change the fabric of this country. We are beginning to fight back. You are a minority…because most people have sense thank God for that!

          • mikemazzla

            You are so wrong on so many levels…but especially as it relates to the US. Atheism is growing faster than any religion.
            Atheism is growing in the most advanced countries…religion is a bigger factor in poorer countries ad less educated countries.
            Thank me for that

          • Janet

            According to Atheist sites maybe…but they distort the facts…people do not go see movies about the bible just for the hell of it….they want to know about Jesus and the bible. Books about Jesus are number one sellers…. atheist will never be the majority I promise you that….it’s just your pipe dream.

    • astromiami

      The reaction was not negative as is implied. The mention got applause–but obviously not enough to please some people.

      But it is a bit weird to thank God when getting an award because it is like saying, “God did this for me because he loves me, but those of you who lost…he does not love you so much.”

      • Janet

        hm…I’m guessing you are an atheist… Thanking God is good and he did both Thank God and also made it clear that everyone in that category were worthy. Thanking God is much like thanking anyone else…give thanks to those that helped you. Now I understand Atheist are very self centered so I do understand your confusion….What I find appalling about your comment….if you haven’t read and understood the bible then I think replying in ignorance is just plain being an idiot.

        • Trevor Osborne

          “Atheist are very self centered”.

          Really? Any of this sound familiar?:

          There is an infinite omnipresent God who in his divine power created the universe and everything in it in 6 days……….and he likes to spend his spare time watching and scrutinizing everything I do and is angered if I, personally, am sleeping with someone of the same sex.

          Sure, the atheists are self-centered……………

          • Janet

            and now I left something out…sick

          • Janet

            See, I knew there was a reason you are an atheist…. people have so many misconceptions of God because they don’t understand the Bible and do their own interpretations of it…sad really. Sin is sin…God see’s no difference in what you do and murder or stealing or lying etc… He is infinitely wiser than anyone because he sees all and knows all. There will be all sorts of people in heaven including gays and yes even murderers. The sad thing is people turn to atheism because they do not understand this. One sin is not worse than the other in Gods eyes. He knew you before you were born. I wish more Christian gays would spread that word… All people are sinners and God knows this. Just because we sin doesn’t mean we should deny him. Everything has a creator, a beginning…

          • Trevor Osborne

            People don’t turn to atheism because of a lack of understanding, they do so because of a lack of evidence.

            And please don’t say that The Bible is evidence. The Bible is evidence for the existence of God the same way Marvel Comics is evidence for the existence of Spiderman.

            “God see’s no difference in what you do and murder or stealing or lying etc”

            You think so?

            Leviticus 20:13
            “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”

            I don’t think the punishment for telling lies in The Bible is death?

            Also if God doesn’t see any difference between lying and murder then I think he has some serious morality issues.

          • Janet

            I understand that it is hard for you to understand…but you must know what the difference in the Old and New testament means. Jesus Christ died for all sin of all mankind…..You must only believe this to inherit it…. Gay’s are not doomed to death simply because they are gay except by evil people of the world. Yes some Christians claim this lie. Most Christians are not condemning Gays ..they just can not in Gods name condone it and go along with it anymore than anything else they feel is a sin. Being sinful does not mean being doomed to death. Death is given by man here in this world and God does not interfere. He already knew what man would do… He already knows the ending …
            I find it sad that there are people of Christ that would tell people “You are going to HELL” or you can not praise God out loud. Those are lost Christians, spreading the wrong word and chasing people from God instead of toward him. There isn’t a single person on Earth today or in the past besides Jesus that isn’t or wasn’t a sinner period…

        • astromiami

          I am a Christian. However your comment disturbs me. The self-righteousness, nastiness, and self-centeredness of your post confirms every negative stereotype of Christians. People who live God’s love reflect it in their actions.

          • Janet

            Stop pretending to be Christian, by your comment we all know you are not.

          • astromiami

            Funny, but I was going to say the same to you. There are a number of people who comment pretending to be Christians, but are just trying to mock us by pretending to be nasty and judgmental. I suspect that you are one of such trolls.

          • Janet

            Well I wonder how God viewed your statement “But it is a bit weird to thank God when getting an award because it is like saying, “God did this for me because he loves me, but those of you who lost…he does not love you so much.”
            I will bet you that he felt it was blasphemous! Christians thank God for everything, good and bad….so what are you?

          • astromiami

            Remember the Pharisee? God wants sincerity, not publicity. People who make these big public shows of faith are usually doing it to show off their faith. And if they are not, they are on a slippery slope toward a pride that makes one believe they closer to God than others. I think it is better to live one’s faith than make a show of it.

            Yes, we thank God for everything in our own personal prayer. My relationship with God is personal, not an act to be trotted out on a podium.

            And declaring that God helped you in front of the folk who lost is just like saying “God chose to help me more than you.” To me that is narcissism disguised as faith. And there is far too much of that going around now.

          • astromiami

            Is it not the very definition of blasphemous to imagine one can read God’s thoughts or speak for him? It shows a lack of reverence and humility. I would take this as confirmation that you are an anti-Christian troll, except that sadly many who actually believe they are Christians, so a similar arrogance before God.

          • Janet

            You are a false profit if at all a Christian
            For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
            If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
            Praise the Lord! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
            Now tell me again why this man did the wrong thing and you are the person to tell us all to be silent in the thanking of God? You are blasphemous and I’m done talking to you. Get right with the lord if you are indeed a person of God…and stop telling people to be silent. We are all sinners…those are the words of God but to denounce God and to make us to feel we should not thank him for EVERYTHING is blasphemous.

          • astromiami

            I think we can all see the kind of Christian you are.

            I hope you truly learn humility and find the love of Jesus.

            God bless you.

          • Janet

            I can think WE all can see how anti-Christ you are and how you feel you are God like and can read this mans mind to say that he has not right to thank God because he is doing it for personal gains. I say to you….for him to have done this puts him in bad light with his Atheist peers…You need to stop judging others and start looking inward. You are not GOD and you have no right to tell someone how to appreciate GOD. So you are truly the narcissist!

          • DoseofReality

            What astromiami is saying, which is correct, is that God wants a personal relationship, not a relationship everyone can see. That is like the Pharisee, who goes to the temple and prays loudly for others to hear, “Thank you God, for I am not like this tax collector.” Astromiami did not say the actor did not have the right to thank God publicly, but that by thanking God for winning, as if God himself gifted you with the win. If you believe God’s omniscience and omnipotence means he’s directly involved in every little action of every person’s life, then I suppose you see no problem with it. But, if like astromiami (I assume) and myself, you believe that God has a path for you and will get you from point A to point B, but you can make your own choices along the way…thanking God for winning an award is strange. If he’s going to thank God, it should specifically be for the life and opportunities he’s been blessed with along the way to showcase his talent, not for a specific award.

            In this little internet argument, I’m sorry Janet, but you’re wrong. I’ve not agreed with almost anything you’ve said because you’re a narrow-minded Christian. Astromiami is correct in almost everything they’ve said. I can’t necessarily agree that thanking God in front of others is narcissism disguised as faith because that is between the actor and God, but I can at least see where they’re coming from with that suggestion. You, Janet, on the other hand, have been hateful, judgemental and spewing vitriol from the beginning. You are the type of person that gives Christians a bad name because you’re blind, arrogant and unwilling to have an open mind.

          • Janet

            Disagree completely. You might tell Jesus he was wrong for thanking God and telling everyone about him. I am correct and for you and astro to judge this man makes you both wrong. I will thank God anytime he blesses me and people like you two will never stop me. You want to hide how you feel about God and be embarrassed to shout from the roof top then that’s between you and God but to demean someone who chooses to do just that well I think God might just be also denounce you. I’m done with this conversation. I am not embarrassed of God and I’m done arguing with those who are.

          • DoseofReality

            I’m actually laughing a little right now. You’re so prideful it almost hurts. I didn’t say it was wrong to thank God. Nor did I say I want to hide my belief in him or my gratitude to him. Nor am I ashamed of him at all. I am also not demeaning the actor, simply agreeing that it is a common fallacy to thank God for a particular success, rather than for the reasons behind the success.

            I just got accepted into a doctoral program for physical therapy. The first thing I did was thank God. But I did not say “Thank you for getting me in to this program.” God didn’t do that. I got myself into that program. I worked hard, put in the hours, and made my academic and personal resume look good. What I *did* say was, “Thank you for allowing me the opportunities that put me in this position to move forward with my desired career,” because I’m aware that every breath of every day is a gift, and that without it, I would not be starting my graduate education. There is a difference.

            Your mistake is thinking that every good thing that happens to you is because God willed it, or God chose to bless you. Just like every bad thing that happens to a good person isn’t directly of God’s will, but rather the fallen state of the world, so, too, is the fact that sometimes, the good things that happen to you are because you worked hard. You should certainly thank God for any positives, but be mindful of the real reasons you should be thanking him. Blind faith is practically as detrimental as no faith at all.

            And may I LOL at your statement that God’s going to denounce me? Please tell me how you know this? Does God tell you these things? Honestly, I swear. That is the epitome of pride to think you know the mind of God.

          • Janet

            Make sure when you pray tonight that you tell God you did everything in your life…What you just typed is the definition of Prideful…and I laugh at you. You can stand with Astro…I stand with God and I stand with this man and I am grateful that the majority also stands with him. You’ve already denounce him that’s why. You are a fake Christian…along with Astro.

          • DoseofReality

            You’re blind. Does the verse, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” come to mind? I do what do and accomplish what I accomplish in my life mostly under my own power…BECAUSE of the grace of God. Because I am blessed to live another day to be able to accomplish these things.

            It’s denounced, by the way. Past tense. And please, explain how I have denounced God? Denouncing him would be like Peter denying Jesus three times before the rooster crowed, saying, “I do not know him.” Tell me where it is Astro and I have denounced God by telling you that you should be a little more critical and thoughtful about *how* you thank God.

          • Janet

            It doesn’t say anywhere in the bible you are not allowed to thank God publicly and that is what this is about…..period… and if you should to think YOU did everything in your life that’s your business, I don’t care. You did the same thing as Peter by claiming you did everything yourself.

          • Janet

            hm…going to be my English teacher now? You might check your own writings….do you do do do ?

          • Akash Hirosh

            arent you doing exactly that? are you not , right now, 1.) judging some one 2.) telling someone how they should appreciate god?

            maybe you should look inward?

            My culture makes me understand humility, and you have none. you want parade around what you believe to be the ‘Power of god’, and regardless of whether he actually existed or not, the abrahamic god never really wanted that. and most people who has read the scriptures of any major abrahamic religion would agree.

          • Janet

            Judging and telling someone they are wrong in what they are saying the word of God tells us are two completely different things. I’m not interested in you or your soul or where your going….

          • astromiami

            I am now convinced you are a troll meant to slander religious people. Everything you accuse me of is something you have done on this thread. The correlation is too exact to be an accident. And I bet the misused words is also supposed to make people think that Christians are uneducated idiots.

            By trying too hard to make us look bad, you proved what you are.

          • Janet

            I was convinced at HELLO..that you were an evil person seeking to destroy a Christian for Thanking God…I think any real Christian can see that you have a problem with people telling God thank you and God forbid if they do it in public because you being all knowing feel you know what is in his heart to persecute him…We Christians have been persecuted for centuries by better people than you. You need to work harder on your mind reading because I believe this gentleman to be authentic which you are NOT. Done following your evil posts

          • abe_rombie

            So why are atheists considered to be immoral even when their actions are more “Christian-like”?

          • Janet

            Some Christians are immoral because they are as God said sinners…some atheists are immoral because they are as God said sinners….people are not perfect no matter what faith they are. Some people are evil on both sides… People think Christians are Christ like…this is not true….they try to be Christ like and we all often fail. All people are children of God no matter what they say or do…who gets Gods grace and eternity is a different discussion.

          • Janet

            also atheists are never Christian like…sorry…never

        • CynicalAtheist

          A god didn’t help Matthew… he did that all on his own. He got help with his talent the same way he helped those poor starving African children get their dinners last night… oh, that’s right, they didn’t. They died of starvation. Christians are the ones who are self centered, thinking there is only help for them, calling on a concept created by the small human mind. The mind doesn’t grow with religion, either, you know. It only gets smaller and smaller and smaller and more narrow and more narrow. Pity. The world needs all the good minds it can get and they are being wasted on religion!

          • Janet

            You have the right to believe what ever you want to believe and I have no interest in what you think or your soul…please feel free to believe we all just appeared…”Poof” and you were there. :) The small human mind you say…hm very funny…seems to me you believe in oxygen…but have no faith in a creator…small minds..yep I pity them too…

          • CynicalAtheist

            Actually, once I stopped believing in a fairy tale, my mind started to grow and my imagination soared. Oxygen can be explained, where it comes from, what reactions take place with it when it comes in contact with other things… what it becomes… science is very interesting and endless… you do not question, because you have been taught not to question. Perception is relative. And I would have to say that from a convert’s point of view, the grass IS greener on the other side!

          • Janet

            I wonder who you’ll pray to in a time of crisis… The grass on my side is lush and green and beautiful…not sure what your grass looks like but I can see mine right now…

        • Linda

          I was a Christian until I actually read the bible. When you get to the end, you become an atheist if you have a brain in your head. All the murderous, incestuous, indecent crap in the “Good Book” is enough to convince any thinking person to take stock of their lives if this is the kind of thing they want to model themselves after. It’s disgusting. When a doctor takes a tumor out of a patient and they thank god, the doctor should put it back in. Give thanks to those who actually deserve it.

          • Janet

            Don’t believe a single word of your response… sounds a bit staged to me.

          • Linda

            As a Christian, you probably wouldn’t be programmed to believe anything well written. After all, look at the example in text that you live by. I am sorry that you are no longer able to distinguish fact from fiction. It is so sad that someone reading a book, getting to the end of it and realizing it’s a fairy tale sounds “staged”. Yet, a grown woman believes that a talking snake and a sea rising up from it’s bed is perfectly acceptable.

      • lhogan

        No, that’s what you heard, not what he said.
        What I heard was an expression of thanks from a grateful heart. Nothing about anyone who didn’t win.
        Projection astromiami.

        • Janet

          Exactly…he did what any Christian would do he thanked God for his success. Some people are just so wrapped up in trying to pretend they are for EVERYONE that they lie and make others feel bad…

  • Red Eye Robot

    How dare he thank God, Hollywood only prays to Harvey Weinstein

  • Jim

    Hey Ellen Page fans, THIS is what brave looks like.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Too bad there’s not a Kristen Johnston (or KJo herself, come down to that) to say “Maybe some day, thanking God won’t be made into a big thing in Hollywood.”

      • favsis5bros

        I didn’t used to be. And at the country music awards, thanking God is bountiful. Think about that for a minute.

        • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Then again, there’s always the question at the CMA, too, of whether they’re playing to THAT audience by doing so; “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’…” I’d hope most were sincere, though.

          Just to avoid doubt, my point was that Kristen Johnston was crucified for having the candor (some might say naivete) to opine that coming out as a homosexual shouldn’t have to be a big thing, and she was called a homophobe, her readers having inferred that she was telling gays to just STFU, a gross distortion which hurt her greatly.

          What I was reflecting on was that I don’t see anyone of a celebrity comparable to KJo’s saying, “So he said ‘God’ at the Oscars– big deal, maybe one day it won’t attract so much attention, for its not then being so rare.”

          • StateofFranklin

            …and on that point, why don’t more celebrities come out and announce that they are straight? I still haven’t seen that.

            We need all sorts of sports figures and entertainers and musicians to come out and let the world know they are straight.

      • Janet

        It’s crazy that Hollywood is afraid to mention God or that they believe in our constitution. And they even have a secret group for those that are conservative because they fear SOMEONE….I say it’s time to boycott SOMEONE….DO NOT BE AFRAID…stand up for your beliefs and don’t let a bunch of morons tell you what you are allow to say or not say. If you are thrown out of Hollywood…please yell on the tallest mountain who is responsible and we will see to it they are removed from Hollywood.

        • Guest

          Constitution? I know you’re trolling, and I’ll only reply this once, but no forms of any god are mentioned in the Constitution.

          • Janet

            First, the constitutional framers built their structure upon the foundation of Natural Law — a God-centered world view. On this the founders were in agreement. But “Natural Law” to the entire founding generation was defined as the “laws of the Creator.” In a 1794 letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, Samuel Adams wrote, “In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.” This is precisely why “Congress shall make no law …” initiates the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, of press, of religion had been given by God and no government can legitimately remove it.
            US Christians have a right to boycott anything we wish and Hollywood is OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE MAJORITY!

          • CynicalAtheist

            You need to check out the Treaty of Tripoli… the very first words are something like “This country was not built on Christianity….” We are NOT a christian nation… we are NOT a theistic nation. We are a republic! Which means: Each person has a voice. THAT means that my ATHEIST voice has JUST as much weight as your christian voice.
            Personally, I am very happy to see that Hollywood is intolerant of religions and it’s about friggin’ time!! They are the drivers of what people do and/or say and I say that if you have to have your stupid TVs on all the time, then they may as well have a useful message: No religion.

          • Janet

            and further more you moron The Supreme Court rulings for the entire first century of American existence boldly declared that “Christianity was a part of the common law of the land.” In fact, the Constitution is only officially considered to be one of the fundamental laws of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is another and is so stated in the U.S. Code. As Samuel Adams put it: “Before the formation of the Constitution … this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the states in the Union and has never been disannulled.” The Declaration, which grounds our liberties upon God, was always considered to be interrelated to the Constitution in the same sense as articles of incorporation are related to the bylaws of a company. The Articles bring the entity into existence and the bylaws manage how that entity is to be run. Thus, the founders needed not place their sense of values in the Constitution since this had already been done in the Declaration.

          • Guest

            I promise, just the last time.

            The founders were deists, they desired NOT for the country to be founded on any religion. You’re the one that needs to go back to your history lessons and get your head out of your bible and circle-jerk sources.

    • Richo

      Not really.

    • Denise Fouracre

      Amen!

    • Joel Barnes

      Expressing a sentiment shared by 70%+ of your fellow Americans is considered brave now? Boy it’s gotten tough finding things to feel persecuted about, hasn’t it?

      • tony

        It is an act of bravery, considering one’s career…. for an actor to thank God amongst the hollywood elites or a Democrat hopeful at a Democrat Party convention.

        • jgmitzen

          Yes, because Christians are persecuted by atheists, aren’t they? Sheesh.

          • Conservachique

            Yes, actually. People have been fired, losing their business, sued, ridiculed, & even threatened for their faith. And no, they are not what some refer to as “homophobic” or “bigots”, they simply believe in God’s Word.

          • VoiceOfReason

            Christians have literally killed people for disagreeing with them. Now that the tables have turned how convenient for them to claim persecution. You are lucky that atheist don’t treat you the way you (Christians) treated them for centuries.

          • cathy

            oh come on, now really. you live in a fantasy world. A person may say they are thin and weigh 300 lbs, but it doesn’t make it true. A Christian gives their life for another, lives by Christ’s words, they can proclaim many things, but unless they follow him, they are deceived like you.

          • MattGertz

            That has certainly happened (rarely, in historical terms). That has also always been against the clear commands in the Bible. Now let’s talk about the millions of people the atheists killed just last century, and with no violation of their moral code.

          • Janet

            No use telling those people anything, they have a mental disease of some sort.

          • VoiceOfReason

            The Bible instructs followers to kill: Non-virgin brides, homosexuals, witches, unruly teenagers, blasphemers & anyone who works on the sabbath,
            For goodness sake, your god claims credit for killing every living thing on this planet except for a boat load. He also sent his personal assassin to kill ever first born child in Egypt.
            Can you be more specific on the millions killed by atheist?

          • Janet

            You are stupid…people have been killing for every conceivable reason under the sun. You crazies always bring up this crap. Do you want to talk about the people who believe as you do for a moment…they’ve killed far more!!! just to be powerful. Join that club….move to Iran please

          • VoiceOfReason

            Ad hominid attacks. Nice. You sure made your point.

            Let’s talk about what I believe for a moment.

            I believe, that if you walk into any jail, prison or likewise correctional facility in the US you will find that 90%+ of those inmates are Christians. Less than 1% are atheist.

          • Janet

            hm…Ad hominid…seems all of your responses have been just that. So let’s talk about what you said for a moment…wonder why those people in Jail choose to turn to God instead of Atheism? Very interesting isn’t it…and let’s talk about this 1%….seems rather high in comparison to your total numbers doesn’t it… I’m glad to know that people in prison turn to God…so your above statement may have been intended as a bash to Christianity but in fact it was not.

          • davidshaw

            Please, PLEASE, give us even ONE example of that happening ANYWHERE in America you god damn fucking retard.

          • That_Guy

            Jim Jones

          • davidshaw

            Are you talking about the religious guy responsible for the murder / suicide of over 900 people?

          • Janet

            Are you living in a closet, under a rock???? Go back to school and stop posting crap you are obviously oblivious too. Go finish watching MSNBC…and stay stupid.

          • davidshaw

            Good reply, really. You totally changed my mind. There is NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a christian person begin persecuted in America. Oh no, your social PRIVILEGES over everybody else, your right to be prejudiced against those you don’t agree with, and your general sense of entitlement are threatened? Woe is you! God forbid you have to have the exact same rights and privileges that those you enjoy oppressing have. Loss of extraordinary privilege does NOT equal oppression you ignorant child. People like you are ruining this world and holding back humanity as a whole. Keep perpetuating your ancient myths while the world advances all around you.

          • Janet

            Good grief you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic aren’t you…. Might help to know your history. This country was founded on the bible. I happen to be American Indian so don’t tell me anything about privileges. By the time you people are done the Muslims will have taken over and you and I will not have much to worry about because we’ll both be extinguished. So just keep on supporting your views…keep on bashing Christians… the difference between me and you, I believe in a better life after death…you just go into the ground. you have more to lose than I do.

          • davidshaw

            I do know history. If you bothered to research America at all you would see that while some of the founding fathers believed in your god, they made a point that NO RELIGION should EVER have power or preference over another in this country. People like you who try to rewrite history make me sick, and I would bet a million bucks you’re simply regurgitating what your religious leaders have told you. Any intelligent, free-thinking, kind hearted person could NEVER come to the conclusion that ANY other person should be oppressed simply because of your own beliefs. You go ahead and believe what you want, go ahead and believe in magic like a foolish child, but the moment you try and use your outdated beliefs as an excuse to oppress others simply because you disagree with the way they live you can sure as hell bet I’ll be standing in your way. You’re what’s wrong with humanity, you and people like you.

          • Janet

            Saying that you DO know history doesn’t make your statement above true.

            Supreme Court rulings for the entire first century of American existence boldly declared that “Christianity was a part of the common law of the land.” In fact, the Constitution is only officially considered to be one of the fundamental laws of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is another and is so stated in the U.S. Code. As Samuel Adams put it: “Before the formation of the Constitution … this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the states in the Union and has never been disannulled.” The Declaration, which grounds our liberties upon God, was always considered to be interrelated to the Constitution in the same sense as articles of incorporation are related to the bylaws of a company. The Articles bring the entity into existence and the bylaws manage how that entity is to be run. Thus, the founders needed not place their sense of values in the Constitution since this had already been done in the Declaration.

            The Constitution does, after all, mention God. Article VII reads, “done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.”

          • Conservachique

            Only someone who is very miserable & full of hatred would leave a remark such as yours.

            Anyway, I’ll gladly give you several examples.
            Craig James was fired from Fox Sports after one day when the higher ups heard of his religious beliefs from a question during a campaign debate. He had been a college sports analyst for 24 years then ran for a Republican seat. He lost, but during the debates he was asked about gay marriage. He gave an honest & fine response, per Christian faith-that he believes in marriage between one man & one woman. The spokesperson initially told the media it was due to his religious beliefs, but later the President of course is trying to pull that back.
            http://www.charismanews.com/us/41261-craig-james-sues-fox-sports-after-being-fired-for-views-on-homosexuality

            Perhaps you can do some research & learn about the Christian couples who have been sued & had to close down their businesses because they refused to provided wedding photography & the other bake a wedding cake–both services would mean endorsement of gay marriage–which is against Scripture. Neither “hates” gays; the New Mexico photographers actually had a good business relationship with the lesbian couple prior to them asking for them to do “wedding” pictures. They are not “homophobic” & nor do they “hate” gays; they simply support marriage between one man & one woman. It would be no different than plural marriage.

            The Utah couple who had a bakery business had to move their business out of their home due to the threats they were receiving.

            These are examples in the news, but there is much ridicule, prejudice, & bias against Christians–& it is often hidden.

          • Janet

            Yes, they are but we will not stand by any longer and watch them demoralize this nation! OUR NATION UNDER GOD

      • goldushapple

        You do realize that having faith in God in the movie making biz is rather odd since most of your peers are either non-religious or irreligious? Not only that, but if you’re an actor you most likely have to do some morally questionable things for your role in the name of “art” and storytelling, or in order to be considered a “mature” and “courageous” actor.

        Also, gays aren’t persecuted in America. The Matthew Shepherd case was a lie.

        >>Boy it’s gotten tough finding things to feel persecuted about, hasn’t it?

        Ironic. The left and the LGBT lobby are the ones crying victimhood like they’re advertising the next blockbuster, loud and clear.

        • Joe Billings

          What part of “Gays aren’t persecuted in America” are you talking about with regards to Matthew Shepherd? Are you saying he wasn’t murdered? He wasn’t Gay? Wasn’t the transcript of the trial released to the public? Yes Wyoming doesn’t have a Hate Crime law, however now it is being proposed. The trial doesn’t lie, this was clearly a hate crime. The murders posed as Gay to get Matthew to earn their trust and then they murdered him. A friend of mine was lynched because he was gay, so your argument doesn’t really hold up well.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters
          • DiMarie

            Please kep up with the latest information before you claim to have all the facts. A new investigation by journalist Stephen Jimeniz lstates that Matthew was no angel…he was involved with meth and had been promiscuous. Matthew knew his murderers prior to that night in the bar and even had a sexual encounter with one of them. New facts coming to light are showing that Matthew’s murder was more a result of the meth subculture in Laramie, WY at the time than it was his sexual preference. Matthew Shepard was a victim of a horribly violent death and his friends and family should have been enraged about that, but what Matthew wasn’t was a ‘hero’.

        • Ryan Johnson

          How can they be, with the media chewing it’s arms off to serve them?

        • davidshaw

          You’re one of the stupidest people that I’ve ever come across. It’s amazing how you haven’t accidentally killed yourself as a result of your own mind-bending stupidity.

        • mufc

          “Also, gays aren’t persecuted in America.”

          You are actually trying to say that Christians, a group which 78% of adults in the USA identify with, are more persecuted that homosexuals, who are denied the same rights that are given to straight couples? You must be touched in the head.

          Source: http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-01/nearly-80-percent-americans-are-christian

      • Erik Gooding

        Yep, it’s brave to love god in America. What universe do we live in?

        • davidshaw

          It’s SO brave to worship Allah in the Middle East! Oh those poor persecuted Muslims over there!

      • Janet

        Exactly that is why we the PEOPLE are starting to stand up to these peons, we will not be dictated to by a minority.

    • goldushapple

      Dang … !

    • Owen Eastwood

      So according to Jim here, it’s harder to mention god in America than it is to come out as gay, in a largely religiously indocrinated, homophobic society.

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        All I can say to totally nuke your comment is to say RUSSIA,and IRAN…you act as if the U.S is more homophobic than another nation in the world,in which you would be ignorant…IT is getting increasingly harder to mention GOd with out some one calling names, and childish comments.No one is indoctrinated, one can not be indoctrinated in a country where there are MULTIPLE RELIGIOUS FAITHS …obviously you have no idea what indoctrinated means…your sad…

        • Owen Eastwood

          No I don’t – you’re putting words into my mouth.

          Russia, Iran, Syria, loads of countries in Africa etc are more homophobic as a society than the US. Of course that’s true, but other than (possibly in part) Russia, theses are not particularly democratic or progressive societies, and hence, the US has a bigger moral responsibility to not be homophobic.

          It’s not getting harder to mention god in America. As has been true for a very long time, atheism or even agnosticism is shunned as being offensive and wrong. There are thousands of cases of this every week, denying it would be completely unreasonable.

          Indoctrination is where someone is taught to uncritically accept a belief system (be it religious, political etc etc). There is a lot of indoctrination particularly within schools that are religious. Where I live in the UK, it’s better, but not perfect.

      • Joe Billings

        Not everyone believes in God, and that too should be respected whether you agree or not.

        • Owen Eastwood

          Of course – I myself am an atheist.

      • Ryan Johnson

        Disagreement is not homophobic.

        • Owen Eastwood

          Actually it is.

          If I said I ‘disagreed’ with someone being black, that would be racist. ‘Disgreeing’ with someone being gay, is homophobic, and equally wrong.

          • Ryan Johnson

            Black is a natural gene. Homosexuality has yet to be proven to be genetic.

            I cannot help being born black. A homosexual can abstain from homosexual acts. Thus, ex-gays.

            Therefore, black skin and homosexuality are not the same thing. Nature must also be homophobic, since homo sex with either gender causes health complications. Because we are not designed to interact that way with the same sex, but with the opposite sex.

            Look inside your toilet the next time you use the restroom. Do you really believe a man’s penis belongs in the same place where that mess came from, whether a man or a woman?

            PS Blacks find it offensive when their race is compared with a perversion such as homosexuality. FYI.

      • UtMadman

        Your perception, I presume. Others see it differently. Then, who is correct?

        • Owen Eastwood

          It’s backed up by a fucking shit load of evidence and logic, it’s not just my opinion.

          America is largely theistic, predominantly Christian. Theism in mainstream religion has ties to homophobia.

          I don’t see how anyone could defend Jim’s position.

    • Progress Together

      Your religions desperation to be persecuted is an obvious sign of insecurity. Your religion is dying, the numbers don’t lie. Information is killing your bronze aged myth.

      • http://steamcommunity.com/id/pwag42 Swagner
        • Kathy Butler Thompson

          You are giving mis information Christians are larger in the religious sector but there are many other religions and cults, but don’t allow the facts to bother.

          • http://steamcommunity.com/id/pwag42 Swagner

            Did you even read the linked article? 78.4/16.1 ≈ 5/1
            Also: misinformation is one word, that’s a run-on sentence, and what do other religions have to do with the relative sizes of Christianity and religiously unaffiliated Americans?

          • Janet

            these facts are correct…

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            There are many other religions that make up the “religious” majority that have many moral truths similar to Christians. This is true in every nation whether it is christian, muslim or Hindu. To say that a person is indoctrinated because they live in a country is to say that individual human beings have the inability to think and make decision, we are robots… that is patently wrong. If a collective group in a society believes in the same thing it would make sense that they individually came to the same conclusion as well as those who have differing opinions.To be “indoctrinated” the entire groups would have to come to the same exact conclusion. We christians have differences in worship, and in some beliefs,but our core is the same..that alone says there is no indoctrination. Find someone else to blame unless you want to blame freedom to “think” is also indoctrination.

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        It seems for someone who does not believe in a main stream religion but that of atheism, you must spend an under amount of time THINKING about a God you do not believe in..What do you care what we think..I certainly do not care what you think…If you think christianity is dying, again you are only lying to yourself. Christianity has survived over 2000 years and is still growing…sad for you.

        • Timmy Smith

          I’m happy for any Christian who is God loving and who doesn’t judge others who don’t subscribe to the same faith for their lifestyle choices.

          That being said, while it’s a stretch to say Christianity is “dying,” it’s certainly accurate to say it is shrinking somewhat.

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            who said it is shrinking? Just because the 3% of anti- christians have found some way to be loud and vocal does not mean christianity is shrinking..in fact is is gaining ground in Europe..and it is growing here…

          • UtMadman

            Timmy, as a Christian, I can say I don’t disagree with you. Thanks for the level-headed reply.

          • mufc

            I hope it is shrinking. We need more critical thinkers.

          • Janet

            You should do some research, not only is it growing it is growing globally. This is the reason for the killings going on around the globe, they are trying to stop the growing trend to be Christian over any other religion.

      • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

        Another one here. Heh. Do convince me Christianity is a bronze-age myth. Go ahead. I’d like a laugh.

        • TAIO

          its magic.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Meaning?

          • jgmitzen

            Meaning you’re not 3. Grow up. Magic isn’t real.

          • Janet

            I suppose oxygen is also magic…since you can’t see it. It’s too bad for you that you are of little faith. Don’t have to be an atheist to be gay…God forgives everyone who wants forgiveness…just saying

          • CynicalAtheist

            Your god may forgive everyone but christians never will. They are the quickest people to judge, even though their good book advises against judging people… yep, hypocrites, the lot of ’em!

        • jgmitzen

          A priori tales of magic and raising from the dead, are either myths or an AMC TV show. Why don’t you raise someone from the dead or levitate or something to prove your detractors wrong? It’s 2014; I think we can fairly certainly say that magic powers don’t exist.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Ah Yes. It must be “magic.” Never mind that you have not made a case that there is no external agent outside of the universe capable of interacting with it. Never mind that you have not interacted with a work such as Craig Keener’s “Miracles” with documentation of miracles even by medical authorities. Also, never mind that even an agnostic writer like John Earman wrote “Hume’s Abject Failure” to show that Hume’s argument against miracles doesn’t work.

            Do you have an argument against miracles that isn’t simply a statement of faith?

            You see, this is an age where people are supposed to do real research instead of just believing what they’re told and that means reading leading scholars.

            In other words, you’re not three.

            Read real books.

          • RD20

            If there is a god why in the world would he let people straight up starve not even talking about wars I’m talking about all the people starving to death in africa and other parts of the world while you sit on your laptop.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Well this is a good objection (And for the record, I’m not on a laptop). So let’s start at the beginning. Are you wanting to go with the way of Epicurius that Hume later followed with saying that four things are believed.

            God is all-powerful.
            God is all-knowing.
            God is all-loving.
            Evil exists.

            The claim is that you can believe in three of these but not all four. Believing in all four produces a contradiction.

            Is that the claim you wish to make?

          • CynicalAtheist

            How about: God is non-existent …?

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            If you wish to address the problem of evil I responded to, then just saying “God is non-existent” is question-begging. If you want to present your own separate argument, then you need to show that God is non-existent, which is a claim about reality. Do you have a reason why I should think that?

          • CynicalAtheist

            “God is non-exisitent” was just another claim. You said there were four….those are if you believe in a god. I gave you, and everyone else, a fifth choice, because, not everyone believes there is a god… I don’t believe in the Greek gods, either, nor the Norwegian, or the Mayan gods… they are all man made.

            How can Matthew get the praise of god (an oscar) while other christians do not get what they pray for; food, money to keep their houses, food to feed their kids? … I just don’t see any god being responsible for any of it. We are all the product of our conditions and conditioning, with a little bit of genetic predisposing in there, too… there is an energy, but it is either positive or negative, and it is not sentient, knowing or omnipotent. Everyone is affected by it. It is effecting you, right now. Your response will either be negative, or positive: reactionary. Your response will have nothing to do with whether or not your referred to your holy book for an answer, nor will you have consulted your holy man (or woman) for a response. You will respond with the conditioning you have had over your life and your belief system will come out with that response. Men follow a mythical creature as to not fully have to be responsible for their actions; they can blame their behaviour on their god (“it is in the bible”) so they have an “excuse” to be homophobic, bigoted or otherwise anti-social.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Actually, I said there were four in dealing with the problem of evil. The objection raised presumes a contradiction between God’s existence and evil. In order to show the argument is sound, one must show that there is a necessary contradiction so I formulated the argument in that way to see if that was what the other person was trying to say. It could be that God does not exist and the problem of evil is not a sound defeater for God’s existence.

            As for what you’ve said, it is a claim, and it is a claim made without evidence. Note that you said we are all the byproduct of genetics, our conditions, and conditioning. If that is the case, then your statements are also a byproduct as well and thus if they are true, they are only true accidentally. You think this way because of your prior conditioning but not because you’re supposedly reasonable.

            So how do we know who’s right and who’s wrong? Well we discuss data. It would be nice to see you bring some. I’ve simply been asking atheists here to back their charges. The only replies I see are insults and statements of faith. Personally, I’m too evidence minded to go along with just a statement of faith. I need an actual argument with premises and a conclusion that follows from the premises.

            Do you have one or not?

          • CynicalAtheist

            I can believe this one claim very easily.

          • UtMadman

            Maybe you should ask Him…

          • Janet

            If you read the bible you would have your answer

          • Pat Robertson

            bible thumpers telling non theist to read more books. The irony..

          • http://steamcommunity.com/id/pwag42 Swagner

            Hey, if you’ve read the bible you’ve proved you’re literate. Telling people not to read certain books doesn’t make the case for your own education. Of course, ad hominem in the first two words of your argument doesn’t help either.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Gotta love the “Bible Thumpers” label.

          • Janet

            Idiots telling everyone “Poof” and we existed talking about magic…The irony

          • CynicalAtheist

            Now it sounds like your are explaining genesis…

          • Timmy Smith

            I can’t talk about reading real books with someone who believes a man with no ship building experience and his non-ship building family built a ship larger than any in recorded history to carry all the world’s animals after a flood.

            I’ll acknowledge there may be a higher power, and I’ll give a nod to miracles, but you Christians and your idea of who we are and how we got here makes you look and sound like a bunch of children with crayons.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Perhaps you should save it then for someone who believes that. I happen to believe that not a ship was built but an ark. I also don’t hold that the flood was global. The flood was local. What all went into it? Don’t know. Who all helped? Don’t know for sure. I do know that testimonies all over the world of a flood account lead to the likelihood that there was indeed such an event. There’s no evidence I see that it was global and that would apparently be a scientific unlikelihood.

            You really should save the remarks for after you find out what someone believes instead of assuming it.

            By the way, for who we are and how we got here, all I will say is we are in the image of God. How did we get here? Don’t know. The text doesn’t really address it. I prefer to hold to John Walton’s view of the Genesis account which I think is more academically rigorous. Was it evolution or a fiat creation? Well I’m not a scientist so I don’t comment on that. My worldview is not built on how we got here, but rather on the resurrection of Jesus.

            Anyone is free to try to argue against that.

          • Timmy Smith

            Forgive me – I’m used to arguing with Christians who cling to ever piece of the good book and refuse to apply any critical thought, taking every letter of the gospel as hard-coded fact. That sounds like a sarcastic reply, but I mean it, actually – I did jump to a conclusion that turned out to be false.

            Frankly, anyone who believes anything in the Bible without a “damn-thy-fellow-man” zeal or a high-minded “forgive those who live in sin, for they know no better” sneer is okay in my book. I’m spiritual if not Christian, and while I do find some aspects of the Christian “how?” (the ark, the age of the Earth) to be, well, silly… that alone wouldn’t be enough for me to write someone off.

            It’s the fact that many Christians pick and choose which aspects of the Bible ought to be rigidly adhered to and which can be overlooked that grinds my gears – especially with regard to homosexuals.

            Most of the this country is now in favor of equal rights to marriage for gays, and most of this country is also Christian. I see this as great progress.

            Sorry if I tangented – just wanted to backpedal and note that while I might shoot first and ask questions later sometimes, I have great respect for any Christian thinker who can respect and not judge a non-Christian belief system.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            It happens, but I would recommend not going to the lay Christians to understand Christianity. THat would be like going to teenage atheists on YouTube to understand atheism. Instead, read the scholarship. If you have a concern with a young-Earth, there are numerous Christian scholars who are old-Earth, and I agree with them. There are many who do not hold to a global flood. These are also in fact very conservative. John Walton who I recommended comes straight out of Wheaton, for instance. You can listen to my interview with him here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2013/06/22/deeper-waters-genesis-1-the-lost-world

            As for the homosexuality issue, let’s state something clearly. If Christians are wrong about the resurrection of Jesus, then their opinion on homosexuality doesn’t really matter. If it’s right, it’s only accidentally right.

            If Christians are right about the resurrection of Jesus, then one needs to look at the world differently.

            Therefore, the one question that needs to be answered is not “Does Christianity condemn homosexuality?” That’s a good and important question, but it is not the essential one. It’s “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”

            I am more than happy to discuss that one.

          • Akash Hirosh

            hmmm.. just wondering nick, have you ever read or have any knowledge about any of the other older religions like hinduism, egyptian, nordic, or greek? why do you chose the bible, a realtively new book as compared to these. Cause funnily enough, hinduism actually speaks of the creation of earth about 3.4 billion years back. might not be accurate to the current scientific estimate, but still it is much closer than 6000 years. why did you chose the bible when some facts in a different religion seems to be more accurate to the modern findings? would you still be christian if you were born in pakistan, or is the only reason you are christian is because of the random chance that you were born in a christian majority nation in a christian household? i believe it is you who requires critical thinking. to think critically is to think with basic assumption that your position is wrong. so that you dont try t twist the facts to suit your needs. you seem incapable of that.

          • mufc

            “Do you have an argument against miracles that isn’t simply a statement of faith?”

            How do you not see the irony in that statement? Literally the only reason that you and other Christians believe in God is because of faith in a single book. As we progress as a society more and more of the Bible is being disproved (evolution, geocentric vs. heliocentric orbit, languages being created by Babel, this list goes on), but you and those like you choose to ignore all of that. It is Christians who refuse to open their eyes, not the other way around.

          • UtMadman

            Someone doesn’t understand quantum physics…

          • Janet

            It’s 2014 I think that we can be fairly certain that everything starts someplace…now if that wasn’t true then wow that would be magical…

          • Akash Hirosh

            oh i see… so who created god? something cant come out of nothing right?

          • Janet

            sure there is a BEGINNING and you are not it.

        • Progress Together

          The burden of proof lies with religion since it is making the claim. I cannot prove to you god isn’t real for the same reason i can’t prove to you unicorns don’t exist. If you do feel you have proof, feel free to have it peer reviewed, published, and be ready to pick up your nobel prize.

        • davidshaw

          You’re the kind of stupid that simply cannot be reasoned with. Go sit in your little hovel and smile about how the rest of us “don’t get it” while we live in the real world and help advance technology and peace and acceptance worldwide for future generations. People like you hold us back and worsen our planet and humanity as a whole. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Oh really? No argument? Just sitting back and saying “You’re stupid!” That’s the way children on a playground argue. If you want to make a case, then try presenting these things called facts and evidences. Until then, I’ll sit back and enjoy reading the latest scholarship on whatever it is I want to learn about while you just embarrass yourself by saying nothing of substance.

          • davidshaw

            It’s incredibly ironic you would claim that I’m the one with no evidence while you supposedly read scholars and the like, yet you believe in the invisible wizard in the sky, whose existence is evidenced by NOTHING more than a 2,000 year old book from a barely literate part of the world. Yeah, keep patting yourself on the back while the educated world laughs at you. Thanks for holding back human progression and trying to keep us in the Dark Ages.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            No. I don’t hold to an invisible wizard in the sky. THat’s a straw man anthropomorphism. I hold to a being of pure actuality whose existence is the ground of all other existing. For His existence, I would use the first way of Thomas Aquinas. It works well enough for me. For the validity of the book, yes, I will point to the work of leading scholars on all sides of the spectrum.

            Oh. The Dark Ages? You buy into that myth. (Well of course you do. You’re an atheist who believes whatever the atheist leadership says.)

            You could do what I’ve done, talk to someone who’s actually done the home work on the medieval period.

            http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2013/06/08/lighting-up-dark-ages-science

            You could also consider Tim O’Neill of Armarium Magnum who refutes this idea nicely.

            http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html

            Oh. I should mention Tim O’Neill is also an atheist.

          • davidshaw

            Anybody who believes there is any such thing as an “atheist leadership” has no idea what it means to be a FREE THINKER. There is no “leadership”, we’re simply informed, logically thinking people who realized that myths and fairy tales are not true. And your description of this so-called “god” is embarrassing; how can any adult really believe that? Keep patting yourself on the back and smiling smugly, it doesn’t matter, I don’t care, just stop using your religion as an excuse to be a dick to people you don’t like and then crying oppression when your prejudices are deemed illegal. Stop holding back humanity.

          • http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/ Nick Peters

            Yep. Freethinkers. That’s why all these atheists I read think exactly alike. They might as well all come from a cookie cutter.

            How can any adult believe what I do? Oh you might want to ask Aristotle. He believed the exact same thing. Sorry, but I think he was kind of an intelligent guy.

            Now please, stop trying to psychoanalyze me and come up with an actual argument. I know it’s hard for atheists, but if you try really hard maybe you can do it!

      • DiMarie

        I don’t care about numbers or your hell bent desire to justifiy your anti-religious view….what I do know is you better get all you can out of this life, because you certainly won’t be a part of the next.

    • Alec Custer

      I agree that McConaughey was brave for saying this, but your comment seems to imply that Ellen Page was somehow less brave or not brave enough when she came out. Which is completely ridiculous, of course.

    • Timmy Smith

      My God (Ha!), what a disgusting barrel bottom caveman think tank it is you have here. Ellen Page coming out as a homosexual at a conference addressing bullying is less brave than an Oscar winner thanking God during his acceptance speech. Right.

      What a joke. You people are frightfully dense.

    • Bret3

      Here’s the thing: being gay in Hollywood isn’t that hard. But, in case we think gays have it so much better than Christians, we should at least acknowledge that being a Christian is pretty much expected if you want to get elected to office, be in country music, be a soldier, or be a pro-athlete. How many times have we heard those groups mention God? On the other hand, being gay in any of those groups would get you shunned.

    • gbbylou2u

      What is brave about thanking a god 70% of the population believes in???????

  • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

    That was the best acceptance speech ever. I mean ever. Not just because of God, but even more because of how he thanked his mom and his wife. Totally stand up.

    In other news, anyone notice that there was zero mention of politics, Obama and Obamacare the whole night? This is becoming a trend now. I’m not sure what to think.

    • spaceycakes

      now don’t go jinxin things

      • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

        No seriously, something is going on. Perhaps it’s just that Hollywood caught on that by alienating 50%+ of the country they also alienate 50%+ $$$$.

        • nc ✓s & balances

          If only. I still ain’t going.

        • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

          I’ve noticed that too. From what I’ve heard about Obama’s meetings with people in Hollywood I thought we would be hearing about Obamacare non-stop on every TV show and at every event but aside from a commercial here and there we haven’t heard much about it from Hollywood. They probably have realized that it isn’t wise to promote something that is screwing up people’s lives if they hope to keep viewers.

          • gary foxley

            it will be mentioned in tv shows in the coming season

          • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

            Maybe but I think they were planning on it for this season too because it was part of their roll-out plan before everything went to hell. I but there was a lot of last-minute editing going on with a lot of those episodes.

        • Texas Freeman

          Hollywood lives in a cloud of haze filled with self importance. They think that visibility = ability to understand. Visibility = power, but they misunderstand the importance of their audience. I will not go to any Woody “Johnson” Allen, Jane “the Traitor” Fonda and Matt Dumbman movies

          • marilyn

            Hollywood is the comedy version of the state of the country in general, in which most of them (and us) are too caught up in the fascinating ego story we tell ourselves about ourselves, to notice that there is a world outside where we play little or no part. However, even if here are only 7 college degrees in all of Hollywood as Ellen suggested, they are not complete morons and many may have noticed that the cool looking and sounding black guy they backed apparently forgot to stop in wardrobe and has no clothes

        • Nan

          But their reaction to MM still alienating.

        • slash069

          that may be the case. my FB is gaining new members every day….Boycott Liberal Hollywood here… https://www.facebook.com/liberalhollywood

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

            Sorry I don’t do FB. Never had an account.

          • Utahlady

            Just liked your FB page!!!!

        • Michael Frost

          So many actors have tainted themselves with politics. It will take many years to forgive them For many it will be never.

        • [email protected]

          Can’t remember the last movie I spent money for but I WILL go see MM’s pic. I have been a fan for years but his open acknowledgment of God’s work in his life made me a card-carrying fan for life.

          • Utahlady

            Do go see “Son of God”….first movie I have seen in a few years but so worth it!

          • ILPatriot

            The last movie I spent money on was “2016 0bama’s America” and before that it was “Atlas Shrugged”.

        • Utahlady

          I didn’t think I would be the only one to reject Hollywood, but it would be nice to think I had some company.

        • Mark Merkling

          Haven’t gone to see a movie in the theater in a long time now. I just wait until they show up in my free channels.

        • E Quilibrate

          Do you reeaally think they possess the cognizance to make
          such a leap? I couldn’t bet on that.

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

            They don’t. But armies of financial managers, accountants and agents do. The more sh*t you say the less money you get. Stop saying sh*t. OK.

        • Kathy Butler Thompson

          one people think twice about what they say when you crawl into their back pockets..money is everything in Hollywood.

    • http://batman-news.com Houmid

      There was mention of the situation in Ukraine, and about slavery in the world today. That counts as politics in my book.

      • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

        No those are things known as “current events”. What about slavery is political, in your own words?

        • Marlene GK

          Thought it was interesting that it was mentioned at the Oscars that there are 21 million slaves in the world now. None in the USA now, by the way. At the peak of slavery before abolition, there were 4 million slaves in the USA. Since slavery isn’t an issue in the USA now, why don’t the folks that are still talking about slavery from our historical past, go out and do something about the 21 million slaves elsewhere in the world? Just a thought…

          • Mar

            I agree with you on all except one point – that there are not slaves in the US today. There ARE. There are many types of slavery. Slavery of the black man (human ownership) may be a thing in our (the US) past, but the atrocity of slavery has always been a reality, all through history, and still is today. It is all over the world, even in “civilized” countries! Very few want to acknowledge it. It’s too ugly and horrible to face, so people pretend it doesn’t exist.

          • Ronald Green

            If you are talking about legal slavery, you are absolutely wrong. If you are talking about illegal slavery, then you have a point. There is a distinction between them. If you are being figurative, then there is too much semantics to reach a consensus and your statement becomes lost in hyperbole.

            Specifically, what are you talking about?

          • Mar

            I was not being figurative. And you are correct, I’m talking about illegal slavery. It is not legal anywhere but it is rampant none-the-less. (I should have said in my first comment ” ‘legal’ human ownership.”)

            Here are some links for more information:

            http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx

            http://www.freetheslaves.net/NETCOMMUNITY/Document.Doc?id=69

            https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=301

            http://scholar.harvard.edu/kleelerner/blog/slavery-still-exists

            http://scholar.harvard.edu/kleelerner/blog/slavery-still-exists

          • Ronald Green

            I am fully aware of the illegal slave trade as it exists today. Sadly, more so than you think. Of the 16,000 women and children that disappear in the US almost every year a large portion of them end up as slaves some where. That number does not include all of those that end up taken into slavery from other countries.

          • Patsy Vickers Blackner

            I totally agree with you except for one thing, there is slavery in America and it is called sex trafficking. And unfortunately it is worldwide. We all need to address these issues no matter what our color or sex.

          • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

            For the same reason they won’t do anything about executing gays in Iran BUT WEDDING CAKE

    • http://LoveBreedsAccountability.com/ Hank Rand ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      There’s a Dem in the White House, and not just any Dem – one the left and especially their elites LOVE. But, things are absolutely horrible right now across the board, domestically to internationally – and they simply don’t have a leg to stand on, so they say nothing.

      Don’t get excited about the Hollywood elites moving to the right or even becoming apolitical, because neither are likely to ever happen.

      Do get excited about things being so bad on the left that they can’t even pull out the “If that darn GOP would stop obstructing!” nonsense.

      Also, I agree: That was an awesome speech. It was extra cool for me because seriously like THREE WEEKS AGO I just started coming around to him as an actor. Way to go, Matt!

      • Eve

        He hates being called Matt. He was named from the Bible and his Mother told him, “Don’t ever let anyone call you Matt, you are Matthew.”

        • fern1212

          Now I didn’t know that, and that makes me very happy. I am glad to know these things about Matthew. I always liked his characters in his movies, but now there is more reason to admire this man.

        • Maryland_Malcontent

          Theodore Roosevelt didn’t care for “Teddy” but now, all these years later, that’s what the world refers to the unfortunately progressive President as.

          I doubt Matthew McConaughey’s luck will be any better.

      • http://lordfoggybottom.com/ BlahBlah

        Uh, I wasn’t excited about anything. I merely observed something and then wondered about it.

    • Cheetah222

      Obama is Hollywood’s little savior darling. There’s a standard “hands off” approach on making any statement against the current administration. Didn’t you notice that even though Leno was ruling the late night slot, they couldn’t wait to retire his ass when he started hitting the POTUS and his croonies in Washington DC really hard during his monologue. When Bushy boy was in, all we heard during award ceremonies (all of them) was how he sucked and all the needless wars we are in. Today, we are in even deeper than before and the silence is deafening…

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        well is is heard to back your guy when he sucks so bad…sometimes you just gotta let it go…and look the other way..hahaha

    • Joseph Balaj

      It was a nice speech but all that about him being is own hero? Really? You have no one you aspire to? Srsly that was just dumb and made him seem even more self absorbed.

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        I don’t think he is a hero ,but even you have to admit it is highly irregular to have a high caliber actor to speak about his faith…extremely unusual…maybe more will be more vocal about their faith…

    • Joe Billings

      Yea, no mention, because it is working.

  • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    McConaughey comes out of the closet.

    He’s loud! proud! and Christian!

    Whaaa?

    • grais

      Dd he mention Jesus?

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        DIDn’t have to, he has mentioned his faith in Christ before..but God and Jesus are one and the same.

    • Emily B

      Based on what I’ve read about that movie, I’m guessing he’s not exactly a Christian.

      • https://twitter.com/rockinranger81 Ben Bollman

        Actors play characters in movies, not themselves….unless they are Adam Sandler.

        • LissaKay

          Indeed they do … Kevin Sorbo is portraying an atheist in the upcoming “God’s Not Dead” and he is a faithful and devout Christian.

          • TeeJay

            Saw a pre-screening of that movie. Excellent, excellent film!

        • Maryland_Malcontent

          Or Sean Connery/Samuel L. Jackson/Harrison Ford etc

      • Marcy Cook

        You don’t have to be Christian to love God. The movie was great by the way. It was inspirational and there was an underlying message about forgiveness and not judging..which is very Christian.

        • 1NonPermissive

          Jesus preached repentance, if people are told everything they do is ok, they will never repent, and never go to heaven. A luke warm faith is a lazy faith.

          • Marcy Cook

            Judge not lest ye be judged

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            Marcy, you judge on a daily basis, that is not what Jesus meant..suggest you do a little research, you may learn something..

          • mufc

            Do you read what you type?

        • ohspareme

          “you don’t have to be a Christian to love God”…how does that work? Your comments makes zero sense, sorry.

          • ILPatriot

            Jews love God.

          • Justin Jurek

            And yet they reject Jesus, often quite forcefully. Whence comes this tendency to defend the Jewish religion among Christians?

          • twigramsy

            I may not agree with their beliefs as a Christian but I do know that they are God’s CHOSEN people and those who curse Israel will, themselves, be cursed. Jesus was a JEW!!! BTW, way to go, Matthew!!!

          • Justin Jurek

            The Church is the new Israel, buddy. Judaism cannot save anyone anymore. Stop embracing this pseudo-dual covenant nonsense.

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            Curious Justin, you are not a believer but you seem to be enthralled with the Jewish and Christian faith..Why? I mean what would you bother?

          • Justin Jurek

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X9L40IEsrc You should also watch this.

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            What most people refer to as Jews is really Hebrew…the Hebrews were the “Jews” in the Bible..the Jewish faith is Judaism….

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            They are Gods chosen people and anyone that choose to harm them will pay a heavy price and will not prevail.Christians are protective of Jews despite their errancy.

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            Yes, the Jewish people love GOD, but Jesus was God-Man and he is one and the same..they just do not see that yet, but there are Messianic-Jews who do and Christianity is growing.

          • fern1212

            The question should be which god/God do you love? It makes all the sense in the world if you are a believer in Jesus.

          • Eddie Fowler

            Jesus is God. God Himself took the form of His created creature, so we could see God for how He truly is; and to allow this creature He loves passionately to murder Him; so the final sacrifice for the sins of the human race could be atoned for. But, one has to accept that gift of forgiveness through the acceptance of Jesus, in repentance.

          • Seraphbleu

            Because everyone who loves God may not believe in Christ so they wouldn’t be Christian. There are many faiths that believe in God that aren’t Christian and many people of no particular faith who believe in God…or that there is a God somewhere…but don’t believe in the “Son of God” story.

          • Kathy Butler Thompson

            Well all I can tell you there were plenty of anti-christians during Jesus time on earth that RECORD for the Roman records that stated the claims of miracles that Christ did were in fact true..one such man was a Jew Josephus…

        • Kathy Butler Thompson

          Oh to the contrary…you do…

      • CLL

        Uh Emily, he’s ACTING, it’s his job, not his life.

        • Emily B

          So you’re saying that making a movie with profanities in the 100’s and several graphic sex scenes is approved by God because that’s his “job”?

          • CLL

            That isn’t what I said at all and I’m sure you’re aware of that. I said he was ACTING and THAT is his job. Does God approve of every little thing YOU do in your life?? I’m sure you’ve NEVER uttered a single profanity in your pure, saintly life. Casting the first stone are you? Must be nice to be so perfect.

          • Emily B

            I certainly have never claimed to be perfect. And God definitely does not approve of everything I do. I am an imperfect sinner. I am definitely not a saint. But I have Jesus in my heart and I strive daily to obey the things He commands me to do in the Bible. I screw up all the time though. However, as a Christian I would never participate in anything that required me to do something that so blatantly violates the Bible, even if it was my job. Again, it’s not because I’m “perfect”, it’s because I choose to obey God. I think most Christians would say the same.

      • janeburt

        Actually, he plays a heterosexual who contracts aids and then forms a buyers club for those also suffering where they can afford medicine that he found that seemed to be working. He (the character) was a hard core Mesquite redneck from what I can tell!

      • Beseda

        Judging faith based on behavior? Careful… that’s a thin edge you’re walking.

        • Emily B

          Behavior reflects what is on the inside. Faith has nothing to do with it. I don’t deny that he believes in God, or even loves God. But making a movie with literally hundreds of profanities and several graphic sex scenes is not something, in my opinion, that a Christian does.

          • mufc

            Its alarming how similar modern day Christian’s thinking and statements are to those who were part of cults in the past.

          • Emily B

            How is that cult-like?

        • Kathy Butler Thompson

          we all walk a thin line..what is in your heart and mind is the way you behave…

      • deb332

        Just what does playing a part in a movie have to do with whether or not he’s a Christian? It’s his job!!!

      • Patsy Vickers Blackner

        It’s funny how we can see and hear the same thing and come to different conclusions. However, Christ reached out to Mary Magdalene and playing a character (based on a real person) that deals with a serious problem in today’s society does not brand you either way.

  • Lisa Jo Jackson

    As a Christian I find that whenever you mention God’s name or talk about what Christ has done people just shut down… even some other believers do… so doesn’t surprise me… just means we all need to keep talking and telling about what God does in our lives and what it means to us that He loves us so much… Praises to my Lord and Saviour and God Bless Matthew for standing up for what he believes…

    • Richo

      It could also just mean that people find you are an insufferable bore. Seriously, with Bibles in every hotel room, churches on every street corner, most with big “Welcome” signs, there are really no shortage of ways for people who are interested in doing so to find out about what “Christ has done”, so did you ever think that trying to bring up “what Christ has done” is about as interesting as talking to people about what kind of food McDonald’s serves?

      Maybe find some more interesting issues in life to talk about, rather than persevering at being even more of an insufferable bore.

      • fern1212

        Richo, The Bible instructs us to share the Gospel, or the good news. What better news is there than the good things Jesus is doing on ones life. If you got a raise, you sure might want to let people know how happy you are about that. It won’t be our good news, but you still want to share it. If we as Christians are obeying what Jesus has told us to do and how it has blessed our lives, you’d would be happy and ready to share your story too. It doesn’t mean you have to read it or listen to it. Plug your ears or delete what you don’t want to read, but it is our job and our privilege as Americans to do so.

        • mufc

          So why is it wrong when Athiets share what they believe in? Becuse we don’t have a book that says it is ok? Christians will never admit that they sit on a pedistal and look down on those who aren’t.

      • Maryland_Malcontent

        It has been a long time since I’ve been in a hotel room that had a Bible in it.

      • goldushapple

        Richo, your idiocy is showing. And it ain’t pretty.

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        There are people in this world who has no access to Bibles or churches and some hide in small rooms to read their Bibles and have Bible study for fear they will be arrested…you are blessed to live in a country where the greatest story ever told can be “boring” to you..most people who do not travel outside the U.S do not have a clue how blessed we are as a country, it can open your eyes…But speaking of an insufferable bore, I think people who are condescending and obnoxious are a huge bore…maybe you should think about changing your tactic.

    • Kathy Butler Thompson

      you are exactly right..we tell the story and God does the changing…

  • stuckinIL4now

    So I guess that’s the last Oscar–or any other Holly-jeered’n’sneered award–McConaughey will be getting.

    • nc ✓s & balances

      Not to mention “good part.”

    • Richo

      He continued to receive applause and laughs for all the people/groups he thanked after mentioning God (you know living breathing people who it can empirically be shown did in fact help him to win the Oscar) and had lots of cheers as he stepped off the stage. If he really said something so vile that would get him blacklisted in Hollywood I somehow doubt that people would forget about that in a few seconds and applaud him wildly at the end of his speech. Think maybe you’re being a tad melodramatic?

      • Kathy Butler Thompson

        Well Richio, why don’t you twitter him and tell him he had NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE THANKED GOD, and that it was everyone else that helped him, I wonder what he would tweet back…#curious.

        • mufc

          Did you even read what Richo wrote? All he said was that just because when he thanked God he got some applause, which by the way was more than he got when he thanked his family, desceased father, and mother, doesn’t mean that it was the worst thing to happen? Besides the applause that he got once his speech was over, God got the biggest applause of all. Why does there need to be unanimous and raucous applause every time someone thanks God?

  • Sua Sponte

    The Oscars…mEH…..The mother of all self-licking ice cream cones…

  • mickeyco

    Better crowd reaction than God got at the DNC convention.

    • hsh 316

      No kidding, at least there weren’t any boo’s

      • ohspareme

        Well they are actors…

  • Disney Vasquez

    Whoever wrote this article is an idiot!

    • ohspareme

      What “article”? New to Twitter and how Twitchy works here???

  • cyndi

    self congratulatory people feel that they have no one but themselves to thank; they grin and thank their fans and then get angry when fans want autographs, pics, etc. They , like Ellen, give gifts to others for public praise not for the real benefit of giving; I am not impressed with the Hollywood ilk; but thank some one for the movie the SON of GOD which will get no attention from Hollywood except to ridicule; the actor who played Jesus say more with his facial expressions than with his words, but his words were of the Bible> thank you Matthew!!!!

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    Isn’t that predictable? He was standing in front of an audience of self centered narcissist who think they are the center of the universe. Of course he would get a golf clap. Matthew McConaughey How gauche of you to thank God/

  • notenoughtime

    Blissfully ignored the Oscars. But watching the replay of McConaughey’s thanking God and the lack of applause made walking past the admission booth to Hollywood’s project oh so much easier. If they think they are where they are today only based on their “talents”, then they are the ones with real problems! Hopefully, McConaughey doesn’t feel the godless backlash but he is already a winner regardless of the future!

  • Magnifico

    Coming out Christian (in Hollywood) is much braver than coming out gay.

    • sumlikeit

      True. Coming out conservative, braver still (and, yes, I know that McConaughey didn’t do that).

      Isn’t it interesting that, in a community which still kvetches about people being blacklisted for their beliefs, it’s necessary for conservatives to quietly form a group called “Friends of Abe”? And is there any question that people who proclaim conservative beliefs in Hollywood will see their careers suffer for it?

      But none dare call it blacklisting.

    • Paul

      Yes, that’s why there are so many openly gay actors and actresses in Hollywood. Oh,wait…there aren’t. And those who are don’t get big movie roles.

      • Magnifico

        They generally come out after their careers are in decline.

      • Ronald Green

        Helen Degenerous ring a bell with you?

    • Christ’s sheep

      AMEN TO THAT!!!

    • Richo

      Just right now there are two major motion pictures re-enacting stories in the Christian Bible (Noah and Son of God) hitting or about to hit theatres worldwide. Many will choose not to see it but it is not exactly brave to proclaim you are a Christian or star in a Christian-themed movie. Nice try at that little “poor poor persecuted Christian me routine”, but fail.

      • Lucian

        Name 5 more in the last twenty years.

      • Magnifico

        Well, “Son of God” has nothing to do with mainstream Hollywood. I’ll reserve judgement on “Noah”. Somehow, I seriously doubt the producers are putting that film out there based on their own personal religious beliefs.

        • goldushapple

          Noah is turned into an environmentalist, and the flood is the product of man’s abuse to the earth.

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/JayJay3Fifty7 JJ357

    That was funny…yet sad and true.

  • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/ FlatFoot

    Truth and God are certainly one in the same. Hence, Obama’s Hollywood sycophants and lickspittles abhor both equally. If he’d thanked “Allah” instead… a standing ovation.

    • Charles Kahaealohaulaokalani B

      Well put, FlatFoot. Well put.

    • Beseda

      If you want to anger a conservative, tell him a lie.
      If you want to anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

    • Progress Together

      The “Truth” is that there is no “God” and you’ve spent your life dedicated to a bronze aged myth passed down from generation to generation by people who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Wake up.

      • http://www.nleomf.org/officers/ FlatFoot

        I will pray for you.

        May God Bless You

  • bobinusa

    he may have won best actor

    but he lost in the reason department

    deluded fool

    • Alphabeta Beta

      Says you. Who is to say you aren’t the fool?

    • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!

      Deluded how?

    • sumlikeit

      In what way?

    • Wart

      you grammar good

      • Lucian

        That’s more like a punctuation/capitalisation thing… but yeah.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Lord forgive me:

    How ironic that a man who starred in a film about AIDS won’t get the “clap” from the audience?

    That’s funny right there, I don’t care who y’are…

  • Shawneuser

    Wow, Matthew McConaughey won an Oscar? Didn’t see that coming. Good for him. Unfortunately, he just guaranteed he won’t win another.

  • sumlikeit

    His speech was brave, wasn’t it?

    As much as Hollywood folks talk about how brave and courageous they are to do films about slavery or Harvey Milk or the Last Temptation of Christ or gay cowboys or some such thing…..I’d say that McConaughey’s acceptance speech was actually the bravest thing I’ve seen a Hollywood type do in a while.

    And all because he acknowledged and thanked God in front of a lot of people who — let’s be frank — consider themselves to be God.

  • https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=outlawforchrist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 $93974362

    Glory in being a minority. You did good Matt take courage.

  • Brad Vacek

    The Hollywood phonies can’t stand Someone more powerful than they perceive themselves to be.

  • Eric

    So when does he get his call from the President for his brave and courageous actions?

    • Nan

      Maybe W will give him a call.

      • Eric

        Could happen. Both Texans.

  • Frank Grayson

    While I appreciate the willingness of anyone to thank God in a Godless environment, I am less willing to start praising them as “great Christians” based on what they said, one time.

    I learned my lesson when Miley Cyrus thanked and praised Jesus as her savior during the Kid’s Choice Awards some years back. We all know how that turned out.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      In fairness, many people HAVE seen how Miley Cyrus turned out, and they’ve said, “Aww, Jesus!”

  • walterc

    I’ll bet most of those in the audience thought he mispronounced Obama.

  • NCRelite

    “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”

    John 15:19

  • lazypadawan

    Saw the clip this morning. God makes these people uncomfortable. Most of Hollywood worships itself and Satan.

  • Texas Freeman

    He won over the hearts of the WORLD with what he said…who cares if Hollywood doesn’t understand the beauty of what he said! Hollywood is way overrated from a political and social point of view, it’s a mentality that is beyond any norms of propriety.

  • rambler

    Guess he’ll never get hired for another film.

  • mpg71396

    Isn’t it sad that when you mention your love for God it has to be considered brave? In the US you shouldn’t have any fear in believing in God. How far we have fallen.

  • socalcon

    As Hollywierd sees it—
    Michael Sam and Jason Collins: Heroes.

    McConaughey: Ignoramus.

  • j p✓ʳᵉᶠʳᶦᵉᵈ

    Is it because the gay gene and the Christian gene are like matter and anti-matter?

  • Conservative First

    Good luck Mr. McConaughey with your future endeavors. Hope you do well in transitioning to a new career path.

  • AlCashier

    GOD bless Matt McConaughey!
    … the narcissistic sociopath obamas did not ‘surprise” appear on the oscars this year to hype their epic communist destruction of America’s best healthcare system in the world??

  • Eve

    The smartest man in Hollywood. No one knows his views in social issues or whether he is republican or democrat. Thanks Matthew for realizing you are an actor and although a highly respected one, your views are your views and you don’t use your celebrity to push an agenda. Congratulations to a gracious and classy winner.

  • Marcy Cook

    They are too stupid to realize that Matthew took that bold stance in face of severe opposition because God has ACTUALLY MOVED in his life and he knows the TRUTH now from personal experience. People don’t just say things like he said for the heck of it. If the hollywood lemmings had realized that they would have hope in their hearts and would be inspired by the man.

  • praymorenow1

    The audience is afraid the camera might catch them clapping in a positive way to the
    sexist, homophobic, anti-Democratic thing known as ‘God’…..can’t have that.
    Yes, noticed that too……
    Matthew is proof you can do funny and then serious movies, and have a loving wife & kids, and actually grow up – before our eyes in Hollywood.
    Now, will someone hand MM a hamburger or something, he’s still too thin.

  • Conservaguy

    Did anyone think it would go over any other way? It’s Hollywood people.

  • ManaMoffa

    I know Matt thru many of his friends., He doesn’t believe in GOD
    . They all know that. They didn’t applause cus they were shocked

    • http://swimholes.com KrimeKat

      You are full of it . . .

    • GoneFishing

      Do you make stupid comments often?

    • ohspareme

      So a friend, of a friend, of a friend…yeah, ok there! WHY would he thank a God he does not believe in and do so in front of everyone? Your story doesn’t add up!

    • Dean Cannon

      I know the Queen of England. And let me tell you something…I found out last week when I made dinner for her…she doesn’t like cauliflower.

  • Mark C. Metler Sr

    Will he be blackballed?

    • Rodney Leon

      you mean blueballed?

  • Clinton Parks

    Don’t blame Hollywood folks, after all they are just blindly following their Muslim Leader in Washington.

  • Rodney Leon

    playing gay, thanking god? Maybe they were confused

    • Karl Nilsson

      MM wasn’t playing gay. Others in Dallas Buyers Club were, but not MMs character.

      • Rodney Leon

        ok, my bad. Havent seen the movie. But of course his part in the movie was to further the homosexual agenda right? I mean, the movie wasnt trying to criticize homosexuality?

        • Karl Nilsson

          You’re 100% right about that.

  • http://swimholes.com KrimeKat

    We who know of God (Bette Midler’s song no one says anything about) are at peace with it . . . others, not so much – keep on keepin’ on

  • http://marthaorlando.blogspot.com/ Martha Orlando

    Gee, and I wonder what Hollywood is thinking now since “Son of God” wowed the theaters this past weekend . . .

  • DrKennethNoisewaterMD

    If he’d done as told and thanked Obama, they would have jumped as one with hearty Hitlergruss!

  • Lou Cifer

    Those Hollyweird degenerates don’t want to have anything to do with anything that doesn’t glorify adultry, divorce, greed, homosexuality, drug addiction, etc…

  • zipeddoda

    i didnt hear the same crowd sound lie screams of joy from the crowd.

  • Blake Stanton

    He had the best acceptance speech I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing!

  • Cliff E.

    But he did thank God for a movie that glorifies sinful acts? (the Jared Leto Homosexual Transvestite Character)

  • TeeJay

    Had I been in the audience, I would’ve given him a standing O

  • joenyer

    Strange; when Darlene Love gave thanks to Him, the audience responded favorably. Why was it different for Matt- because he’s an old Texan who owns guns or something? It was an tepid response I must say.

  • http://www.algoreisabidfatidiot.com/ “Rev Jim Jones”

    Liberals, especially the elitists in Hollywood, find it difficult to acknowledge a greater being than themselves.

    They weren’t always this way but it usually starts off with a hungry actor begging God to be discovered and upon doing so as they rise in fame and fortune they suspect they’re God’s chosen one. And once they crow upon the Hollywood dung heap it occurs to them it they who are the Gods.

    So it quite natural this gathering would take offense at anyone suggesting God is elsewhere than sitting in the audience.

  • Hendrick

    I understand that after the ceremony that there was a rush to the Hospital by many celeb’s due to muscle spasms from patting themselves on their backs.

  • Abigsoxfan

    This amongst numerous other reasons is why I choose not to watch the Oscars.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRtmMxB5yw CrossWinds

    I hope he uses his talents to the Glory of God, and makes some good movies based on biblical themes and characters, and just wholesome family movies…….I did like his acceptance speech……….

  • Beseda

    I think the crowd was unenthusiastic in their applause because they were trying to figure out who McConaughey was talking about –Morgan Freeman, maybe?

  • Sudbury-born

    good for you Matthew…as if you should give a hoot about what non believers think…who are they to decided what is right or wrong.

  • jtak101

    The only way Mathew can redeem himself with the Hollywood elites now is to either join islam, molest a child or announce he’s gay..

    • Sean

      Well, in all honesty, it would seem one could pick any combo of two at any point together.

  • Richard Lawler

    That is why I don’t watch the Oscars. Rich actors who make judgment on the power of faith. They want us to change the way we do things to protect against global warning but yet jump n their private planes and I am guessing they did not give up their limousines. Or the actors who are forthright in backing politician and then leaving the USA to live in another country. You will find most people in Hollywood are hypocrites.
    Why is it these people praise sport figures for getting that touch down or hitting a homerun… more times then not the athletics point to the shy to thank a higher power.

  • akansan

    Hollywood wants everyone to be so tolerant of them but they are so intolerant of others, kind of like the left in general.

  • Yoma Ma

    I am sure if he thanked Allah they would have given him a standing ovation. But they fawn all over Woody Allen the pedophile. You cant make this up

  • huluvaguy

    The ground could have opened and swallowed those in attendance at the Oscars and those left in America would have gained 20 points to their I.Q instantly, The downside would be that the former site of the ceremony would be declared an EPA Superfund cleanup site from all the shat that the Earth had to swallow.

  • Tom Grassia

    Although, it is also sad that speaking of your faith must now be an act of bravery.

    No. That’s a great thing.

  • lcky9

    Give that man another award.. one for bravery .. I will go see every movie he’ in.. I always liked him now I REALLY like him.. he’s a good man.. kodo’s to his family for raising such a wonderful son

    • Guest

      Kodo

  • jsw7533

    Then you wonder why when these stars have personal problems, he is slow to hear their prayers? Let’s just call it His “slow clap”…

  • Tom O’Brien

    What do you expect from a 90% “commie” audience??

  • EYA

    Of course they wouldn’t cheer for God. But they would explode in applause at the mention of some crappy liberal case whether legitimate or imagined… They’re a bunch of phonies, both by profession and in real life.

  • Delbert63

    Some LGBT person coming out is not brave. McConaughey thanking God in front of the Liberals in Hollywood took guts! Well done!!!

  • Chris Hill

    Hollywood phonies- the ‘tolerant’ liberal left displaying their disdain n intolerance for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their dogma

  • richard morrison

    Yes

  • Mango

    The coolest thing about the speech was that McConaughey didn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about the audience’s reaction, or lack there of, he’s a believer in God and it was most important to express his gratitude to Him rather than to an audience of intolerant Hollywood liberals. Now that’s a sign of a real man right there.

  • kmbrlycc .

    You’re darn right I noticed. Is it such a crime for anyone to declare that a higher power may be a contributor to one’s success?

  • Amanda Fisk James

    Had he expressed Muslim faith, agnostic or atheism belief, he would have been praised!

  • richard morrison

    But tears in THERE eyes FOR speedballer,I guess they believe cocaine user’s more important than GOD….

  • Manny Gongora

    Would have been a different audience reaction if an African-American actor did the same thing… Sad but true.

  • steady321

    In a somewhat related topic, had I known who would be portrayed as the villain in Liam’s current flick “Non-Stop” I would have not paid to see it. The bad guys turn out to be two ex-military guys, one who happen to have lost a loved one in the twin towers on 9/11. God forbid Hollywood be realistic in portraying a middle eastern muslim as a villain.

    • SpiffyMclure

      Oh hai. Spoiler alert!

  • Eric Weaver

    either they were afraid to clap which is wrong and sad, or they are all the most self indulgent sob’s ever.

  • Djack80

    He pretty much assured himself of never getting another award from the Acadamy. good for him. It will make a nice door stop

  • Nunyer

    I never watch any of those stupid awards shows simply because they are
    all up on their pedestals thinking they are gods or something, and the
    fans just worship them from afar. How stupid. Their heads are all
    swollen enough and I refuse to watch that crap. However, I would have
    liked to see the audience reaction as well. I really do like Matthew.
    He is one of the few that I do like. I didn’t see that movie in particular, but I am
    thinking he is thanking God for his overall talent as an actor and not
    necessarily for that one movie. Actor’s act the parts they are given. They aren’t the people whom they portray in the movies. Acting isn’t real life. If he says he thanks God for his talent, then I believe he knows God.

  • OwlCreekObserver

    Hey, it was a room filled with people who spend their entire lives pretending to be people they’re not. They then pretend that it’s all very important by handing each other trophies. The best acting is done by those who don’t get trophies but pretend to be happy for those who do. Bravo!

  • Thomas Alkire

    It shows how g-dless, hollywood is they don’t like proclaiming the name of our g-d hashem, the almighty g-d.

  • C K

    I didn’t watch it do to complete non-interest, but regarding this topic: It’s a darn shame that people announcing that they’re gay gets more applause and praise than showing you believe in God. Hey I have an idea, how about when something is announced it’s merely looked at as normal or ‘ok’. Why does either have to be taboo, especially religion…..damn shame.

  • BRM-373

    Gutsy,Gutsy,Gutsy!

  • http://twitter.com/starwarsfan107 Hayekguy

    A very rare and very welcome speech in a place where open hostility towards God and Christianity exists.

    • Isahiah62

      so I tuned into SNL b/c I am a fan of Big bang and wanted to see “Sheldon” in another role- despite being absolutely NOT FUNNY, they of course had to put a skit making fun of a child reading the Bible and lampooning Christians.

      Apathy or rejection of faith is one thing but shamelessly ridiculing others for having it is quite disgusting- RUDE and obnoxious. Of course no Christians will make bomb threats, or stab the actors for it–

      • http://twitter.com/starwarsfan107 Hayekguy

        I don’t have a problem with people’s opinions, it’s how the perceive and interpret them.

  • Terry Williams

    There seems to be a lot of ” Lost ” souls out there who shy away from God, but did you ever notice who the first person is they ask for help from in a dire situation, God!

    • Plainlyspeaking

      Delusion projection.

      I’m getting bored with the inanities being mouthed.

      • Terry Williams

        Get bent.

  • FFighters of America

    We will never forget. Hollywood seems to be in its own world and I think we should grant there wish to be there own state http://freedomfightersofamerica.blogspot.com

  • Terry Williams

    Too many people give their thanks to the almighty ” Dollar”, but the one person who made that all possible is God, giving thanks is the best you can do!

  • Rodney Leon

    maybe he was sarcastically thanking an anti-gay god and hollywood was upset with his blasphemy

  • David Dill

    The day I start worrying about what the garbage in hollywood thinks, will be a day im in spiritual trouble. God bless ya Matthew!

  • Michelle Sherman

    I think it was the most beautiful and heartfelt speech of the night. I love his faith and praise in God and his family. I feel sorry for anyone surprised by that.

  • Pizza the Hutt

    Crowds are normally quiet during an acceptance speech.

  • CrossHugger

    If he would have come out of the closet as gay they would have given him a standing ovation. Good is evil…evil is good.

  • CrossHugger

    Obama doesnt want them talking about ocare because it only reminds the country of how much obama and ocare suck.

  • Fred Toft

    I worked in Hollywood for over 30 years and now have grand children working there, so I think I know those people fairly well. It’s not that they don’t believe in God, it’s because they are afraid! Our whole country is now living in fear of being taken to task for going against the Progressive/Liberal line! It took guts for Matthew McConaughey to stand up there and say “thank you!” to God!. The rest were even afraid to applaud! Fear rules our country!

    • Msgtdubb

      Fred, maybe it’s time for the believers and morally balanced people to take the film industry out of the hands of the America hating liberals and start producing movies that parents can take their kids to see and young couples can go see without being embarrassed.

    • Elizabeth Bennett

      So, what do you think it is? Pew and Gallup put those who self-identify as Christian at 78 and 77% respectively. Is it a matter of the squeaky wheel? I have always chalked it up to the power of Hollywood and media culture pushing the progressive/liberal/homosexual/feminist/transgender/socialist…. agenda. If Hollywood is scared, where is it coming from? Serious question, not being snarky– I’m as far removed from Hollywood as one can get.

    • Plainlyspeaking

      You are merely projecting your own beliefs and fears onto those who have no interest in sharing them. It’s sad, pathetic.

  • Last Bastion

    One of the many reasons why I won’t watch the Oscars. I hate Hollywierd… filled with self absorbed Godless liberal [email protected]!!!

    • Plainlyspeaking

      LOL! I can sense your first stroke coming on.

      • Last Bastion

        Nah…. I just tell it like it is to avoid a stroke. LOL

  • Mike Blust

    Way to go McConaughey. You just won over a new huge fan. Good show of nads my Man. F##k Hollywood and the pathetic Liberals.

  • Guest

    Too many hate God until they’re on their death beds when they are begging for forgiveness. Hollywood knows those that believe in God will still pay 10.00 to see their movies and watch their stars get awards; who are the idiots now.

    • James Fineman

      I have not gone to a movie since the stinker Godzilla in 1997.

      • Elizabeth Bennett

        Except for the two Tolkien series, I’m right there with you.

    • Plainlyspeaking

      “on their death beds when they are begging for forgiveness”

      I won’t ask of forgiveness of something I don’t believe in, ever. I’ll leave that to you, who clearly believes it. Projecting your own superstitions, fears and weaknesses onto others is as about as pathetic as it can be in terms of being a human being.

      People who don’t believe in God don’t hate God, but you can take a distinct dislike for some who profess they love God, not because they love him but because they are shocking stinkers of an excuse for humanity who like to hide behind their shield of belief to practice their unrestrained bigotry and hate.

      • Guest

        “Too many hate God until they’re on their death beds when they are begging for forgiveness.” If you’re going to quote someone take the entire quote in context. You and I have no idea what we will do or say in our final days or hours, you may think you do but you don’t know. Having worked in hospice I can say I’ve seen many non-religious and many documented Atheists acknowledge God in some way and/ or ask for his forgiveness in those final days. I can’t explain it no more than I can explain those who by our standards have died and come back with stories of seeing loved ones guiding them back to their body. I’ll let you explain it since you’re the expert on this subject and know everything. Get some help for that anger issue you project.

  • H50 ✓RAT

    Sad that acknowledging your faith is considered brave these days. SMH

    • James Fineman

      Expect it to get worse, much, much worse.

      • H50 ✓RAT

        I do and agree it will get much worse.

  • Robert Caleb Potter

    Bravo to McConaughey. My responce to Hollywood in general has been ‘tepid’ for many years now.

  • thinkingabovemypaygrade

    The tepid clap for McConaughey…underscores why quality alternate filmmakers (Christian and others who tell good stories with good production value and who honor quality values) have a real market!!! “Hollywood” is too elitist (most of them) to GET it!!!

  • WillVMI68

    At least he didn’t admit to being a Republican.
    I avoided the Oscars, so can someone post a link to his speech?

  • Yorktown1781

    The audience’s and progressive’s reaction is why the entertainment industry is dying, and for the good of this country the industrial entertainment industry can’t pass into obscurity soon enough.

  • Gerald

    Looking for a Hollywood hero that your kids can look up to?? Look no further than Matthew McConaughey!! That man is a hero that even I can look up to!!

    • Plainlyspeaking

      But, but, but, he’s part of it! A willing, enthusiastic participant, no less.

  • junkbondtrader41

    A simple question: What takes more “courage” in Hollyweird? “Coming out,” or proclaiming your love for God?

    Any honest answer would concede that if McConaughey announced he wanted to marry a dude, the applause would have brought the house down!

    • tedlv

      If a person “comes out” publically, they may well be invited to the White House. Mention your love for God…Crickets…if you’re lucky.

  • Joanne13

    It is sad about the lack of appreciation for McConaughey’s statement about God. But it’s NOT unexpected. I’m really surprised that anyone is shocked by it, certainly enough to tweet it out. Hollywood for the most part is God LESS in all of it’s ways. ANY actor (man or woman) who is courageous enough to thank God for ANYTHING when receiving an award in a culture as depraved as 99% of Hollywood culture is HAS to do so realizing that it’s likely their statement won’t be enthusiastically received. I hope McConaughey was prepared to be under appreciated before hand so he wasn’t too disappointed by what he got.

    As a side note the only thing he said that I could find fault with would be about his dad ‘up there’ with a beer. I hope he was kidding ’cause THAT ain’t gonna happen… just sayin.

    • Plainlyspeaking

      Based on your rationale he shouldn’t have been there participating, never mind thanking God for his part in the ‘Godless’ process, but never mind.

      • Joanne13

        Never said anything of the sort. I said no one should have been surprised at the lack of applause. I said 99% of Hollywood is Godless. Obviously I wasn’t referring to him. Are we clear on that now?

      • Joanne13

        I already responded to you but since I’m not seeing it here I’ll write once more…

        I wrote that no one should be surprised by the lack of enthusiasm in the audience over McConaughey thanking God because 99% of HOLLYWOOD is Godless, which DIDN’T necessarily include him. Your misunderstood my comment. So are we clear now?

  • Proud2bfromtheUSA

    I am shocked is he a Christian? Just wondering.

  • Thunder Lizard

    Good for McConaughey but I don’t care a whit about the Oscars. I know Hollywood save for a few individuals is diamterically opposed to almost everything I believe in and have been taught about God and my country.

  • Mark Webb

    They were all tuckered out after clapping for Meryl Streep, *again*!

  • Fred Jones

    Imagine if he had thanked his country as well. He would have been pelted with rotten tomatoes.

  • Conrad2010

    Liberals in & of the movie industry seem to be Godless.

  • James Fineman

    On the upside, I will love it when they all burn in hell.

    • Plainlyspeaking

      You won’t be there to see it.

  • john

    im surprised the anti god Hollywood elites heads didn’t explode

    • Plainlyspeaking

      You are confusing the phenomenon of complete indifference with hate. Religious people like to claim hate as their own.

  • JBP1998

    The mainstream media is succeeding in making God, the USA and American culture irrelevant. Exactly what the enemy needs to finally take over. Notice there are no good or honest American heroes anymore. What’s good is downplayed, what’s bad is glorified.

    • Plainlyspeaking

      “American culture”- there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one. A bit like Italian war heroes.

  • ManaMoffa

    Matt does not believe in God, that’s why they were all shocked and didnt applaud. They had no idea what he was doing

  • Brian Saxon

    Shouldn’t Michelle being saying he’s an “inspiration to us all”

  • Eddie frOly

    I didn’t watch the Oscars in protest. I’m sick of having their liberal agenda shoved down my throat and basically being told that my values are rubbish.

    • Guest

      I didn’t watch the Oscars either, but that’s because in addition to what you said they are a monotonous display of narcissism, and basically just pure sh*t.

  • Brandon

    Of course the crowd was probably taken back a little. Had McConaughey thanked Zorglock, ruler of Beta 56, the Scientologists would have rejoiced.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      The Church of Scamatology, L. Ron Buzzard, founder, David Miscarriage, current Grand High Exalted Chizzy, would employ Sanction R2-45 on those who reveal such information to those who have not signed the billion-year contract and handed over all their worldly goods first.

  • ManaMoffa

    STOP watching Hollywood movies and network tv non-sense
    It’s rotting your brain and soul
    Just boycott their sponsors by calling their sponsors directly and telling them you will not buy their products because of their assocation
    You don’t have to go into detail as to why. Just let it be known that the association itself hurt their business.
    You can even tell them that you tune into the show , so they think even people watching are boycotting them.

  • tvance929

    Waiting for the Bravery Parade to start any minute…. bwhaahaha…snort! I almost kept a straight face for like 10 seconds! Strange how ‘Coming Out’ of the God closet could cost him his career yet doesnt merit an ounce of the respect others get for risking nothing.

  • Paul Hiett

    Why does it matter to anyone whether or not more people clapped? Should everyone share your beliefs? His beliefs? He believes in God, great for him, but not everyone does. What’s wrong with keeping religious beliefs to yourself, or at the very least not criticizing those who don’t share yours?

    • Jason Smith

      Replace religious with another word( like sexual) and if I said that, I’d be tarred and feathered. Of course you believe that religion is the only thing keeping homosexuality from being the in thing……………

    • gjsmith_62

      Why not keep your opinions to yourself?

    • Hy Alldredge

      Yes, everybody should share their beliefs. Why should they keep them to themselves? And why do you care?

      • Paul Hiett

        It seems, based on the responses on here, that if someone doesn’t share your belief of God and your version of Christianity, that somehow they’re in the wrong. There’s nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, when it comes to religious beliefs. If someone doesn’t share that belief, are they “wrong” for not clapping?

        • Hy Alldredge

          I think you’re misreading the comments. They are pointing out that this is evidence that people in Hollywood are godless, which is true. They’re not wrong for not clapping, they’re wrong for being godless.

          Also, it’s not about “our version of Christianity.” He didn’t mention Jesus, a denomination, the Bible, nothing but God.

          • Mother Joker

            Can you all just stop demanding that everyone must believe in an invisible, all-knowing superhero? You sound like a total nut job. Typical religious jerk, forcing your views on everyone else. This is why no one clapped, because you’re all pushy, hateful and annoying as hell.

          • Hy Alldredge

            I’m not forcing anything on you, or demanding that you must believe anything. I’m simply saying you’re wrong. We’re right, and you’re wrong. You’re perfectly free to be wrong. If you have a problem with somebody telling you you’re wrong, I suggest (in addition to growing a set) that you remove the log from your own eye before removing the speck from mine, because you have no problem at all telling me or other Christians that we’re in error. The difference between you and I is that I don’t throw a hissy fit and call you hateful when you disagree with me.

          • notbent

            Project much?! I can hear your feet stamping and see your hands clenched. Have a nice day.

          • Plainlyspeaking

            They are no more ‘wrong’ than you, but that is just inviting a pointless argument.

    • Casca

      Why don’t gay people keep their beliefs to themselves ?

      • Paul Hiett

        If they did, they’d continue to be oppressed and persecuted by Christians, as they have been for about 2000 years.

  • Demoivre

    When your god is the State you don’t like competition.

    • notbent

      Truth, that.

  • tony

    Suspect most of the audience wondered who this God guy is and were busy texting his name to their agents. But Matthew’s speech was not to the assembled group but to his Creator who is most assuredly pleased.

  • Milly Tamburro Soisson

    I hated matthew mcconoughey after I saw Magic Mike. After that speech at the Oscars I see him in a whole new light again. love him, love God more.

  • gjsmith_62

    Good thing there wasn’t a vote, they’d have been forced to declared the award.

    Awkward indeed!

    “After a third attempt, Villaraigosa declared that the amendments had passed.”

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-dnc-vote.html

  • Monica Davis

    I remember when it used to be so common for actors & artists to thank God, even when we would cringe. Take for instance Salt & Peppa thanking God for the raunchy song they won an award for back years ago. Everyone clapped and clapped and clapped…

  • elansunstar

    no one KNOWS why they were silent Maybe a lmoment of inner prayer for them all you just dont know.
    Did not bother the creative Creator I am certain.

  • missy

    That’s because they are all Satan worshipers, Iluminati anyone?

    • Progress Together

      Really? How stupid do you have to be to post something like this?

  • redbirddeb

    Hollywood, and its fans, all bow to “false idols”. Matt knows better.

  • Donald Sensing

    Now, despite the Oscar, he will never work in that town again.

    • Casca

      Unless he recants, joins Kabala and comes out of the closet ( again)

    • Plainlyspeaking

      LOL! That’s truly paranoia singing like a canary! So, if he turns out to be flash-in-the-pan artist after all you have his defence lined up for him in advance; it’s because he is a professed Christian. I’ll take a wager that he wouldn’t thank you for it for a moment. It may be he will not be offered certain roles because the expectation might be that he would refuse them or wouldn’t do them with enthusiasm but if, for example, he was asked to play the role of Lucifer in a film I am sure he would do a pretty good job of persuading whoever that he could do it, just as well as a straight actor playing the role of a gay person. Stop feeling sorry for him, he doesn’t want your pity and certainly doesn’t need it. Talk about projecting your own inadequacies.

  • disqus_U177lu3GVp

    Good for him!

  • Bill

    R’Amen

    • Progress Together

      Fight on my fellow pastafarian.

  • Dennis

    Hey but If he said he as coming out of the closet just think of the response from the audience he would of got and the mind numbing TV coverage

    • ActuallyAVetTech

      Oh, completely. Had he gone up there and said, “I want to tell everyone that I am gay”, there would be furious applause and tears with comments like, “He’s SO courageous!”, “He’s a real hollywood hero!”
      Yes, our society has gotten to this point.

  • Bustin Cheeto’s Everywhere!

    Is McConaughey on twitter? If so I bet he got thousands of new followers

  • FreeYourMind2

    Darlene Love honored Jesus and God but the crowd accepts it because its only “gospel

  • haroqueries

    Once again, widdle conservatives have to have a panic attack about the Oscars because it’s the biggest party of the year and they will never be invited because they can’t create anything.

    • benched42

      Biggest party of the year? With a 12.9 rating and about 44 million viewers it’s hardly the biggest party of the year. Did you forget the Super Bowl? It had a 46.4 rating and about 112 million viewers. I’d say that just barely nosed out the Oscars (which I didn’t even watch).

  • Noneya

    The truth be told. I’ve moved on from the Hollywood narcissists a long time ago and am better for it. Who gives awards party’s for themselves besides Hollywood? That tells you all you need to know.

    • Cantbelieveyouthinkthis

      EXACTLY!!!!

  • ramubay

    Perfect. If it made the Hollywood crowd uncomfortable…good. I want them uncomfortable, those greedy crapazoids.

  • Kvinna

    Refreshing!

  • Progress Together

    You are all so desperate to be persecuted. You can believe in your magic sky fairies based on bronze aged myths, just don’t expect us to go along with it. Numbers never lie, and numbers indicate the age of information is greatly hindering modern religion. 30% under 30 are now secular, a huge jump from just 10 years ago. Now go “pray for me” you short sighted, condescending mob of “pray the gay away” hate.

    • Cantbelieveyouthinkthis

      But when a pedophile (Allen) gets more applause then someone thanking god, then there is just something broken somewhere.

      • Progress Together

        And no one is talking about that because it does not fit into a sensationalist title that all the religious right wingers can circle jerk to.

        • Cantbelieveyouthinkthis

          Actually it will get snuffed out in the media. Then again so do all the stories about priests that keep diddling kids so what comes around goes around.

          • Progress Together

            Well, it’s maybe more likely that we’ve already been down the “Woody Allen is a pedophile” road so it’s not exciting anymore.

      • Plainlyspeaking

        You clearly mean someone who has been ACCUSED of being a paedophile.

        • Cantbelieveyouthinkthis

          Ya just like Hitler was ACCUSED of ordering the deaths of 7 million Jews. Anything else stupid you want to contribute to the conversation or are you done for now?

    • Mango

      Let me guess, you’re another “tolerant liberal” come to “educate us all?” You might want to learn the meaning of the word condescending before you pretend to educate people you don’t know anything about. Once you do that you might see just how condescending, ignorant, and intolerant you sound. Good luck with that. I’m not going to pray for you because I’m not religious. Crazy right, how a non religious conservative person can also be tolerant? If you’d like some pointers on how to actually do that, I’ll be happy to help.

      • Progress Together

        Well, studies have shown that religious people are generally less intelligent than secular people. http://www.examiner.com/article/study-shows-religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-non-believers

        • benched42

          Ah, yes. A “study” based on metadata from other studies. You know, the kind of “study” that can come to any conclusion the person or group conducting the study wants simply by gleaning only the information they need.

        • Mango

          Yawn. You’re deflecting from the fact that you need to reflect upon your own attitudes and judgements towards people who believe differently than you do. This isn’t about the intelligence level of a particular group of people vs. another, this is about you being condescending, ignorant, and intolerant while attempting to educate other people.

        • astoriava

          Studies have also showed that human IQ is declining overall… and that also just happens to correspond to a decline in religiosity overall. Might want to rethink your data.

    • benched42

      Why is it that when people offer a different opinion than the “tolerant” left, that opinion is immediately branded as “hate”?

      • Invertex

        There’s a difference between having an opinion, and trying to IMPOSE that opinion through law on others.

      • Halothane

        Not a different opinion. A delusional world view that has been given special rights to continue spreading its ignorant teachings.

  • thedougbob

    I don’t watch the shitty award just for that reason. At least they did recognize someone with religion. Hollywood can’t fall into the ocean soon enough for me.

    • Scott Wilson

      Now we get to see if he is EVER nominated again for something other than dog catcher of hollyweird!

    • Plainlyspeaking

      I wouldn’t watch it either because it is a figurative love in, but then Matthew McConaughey was a willing, enthusiastic participant in the love-in. On top of which religious groups have long been the masters of the self-love-in.

  • Carleton W. Fish

    Last night, super-rich Hollywood moguls and Obama zombies worldwide were caught off guard once again – not just by Matthew McConaughey’s comments, but also by this failure to insure “political correctness” outside the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. Wah-wah-wah for liberal progressives, one and all. http://moonbattery.com/?p=42976

  • Robert M. Finklea

    Any amount of respect I had left for rank and file Democrats was destroyed at the DNC when they denied God 3 times.

  • OrganicGirl

    They won’t be clapping if they miss the “Good Ship Lollipop”!

  • Dustin L. Hopper

    Really? His public love for the imaginary being in 80% of the countries collective head is brave? Seriously?! All religious people do is push GOD and religion in our face. The crowd was full of critical thinkers it sounded like to me, which would explain the slow clap.

    • robert anthony

      Yet, Jesus has been on TV less than Michelle and Barack…so, who’s being pushed in our faces?

    • astoriava

      Yeah right, Hollywood is known for its “critical thinkers”. Which silicone stuffed, botox imbedded, code pink behaving, empty headed, casting couch promoted, leg spreading genius critical thinkers you are referring to?

      • Plainlyspeaking

        Oh ,but your hate is pure. Did God bless you with that or is something you baked up in the kitchen all by yourself?

  • IHateFatChicks

    Newsflash: The whole “god & jesus” thing, they’re myths. Get the memo.

    • Mango

      Extra! Extra! Read all about it: Trolls scurry out of holes in the ground in record numbers out of fear that a famous Oscar-winning actor believes in God. Oh the humanity!

  • Nathan

    No one deserves accolade for positing a worldview (religion) completely devoid of logic, reason, and evidence. The audience’s reaction can be summed up with these words…welcome to the new scientific age.

    • gena123

      Actually the audience can be summed in one word Fascist, no one is allowed to disagree with Nathans world view!!!!

      • Nathan

        1) Not a fascist.
        2) Never said you had to agree with me. That’s what YOU do by condemning people to “hell”.

        Conclusion: Stop making stuff up but I wouldn’t expect a religious zealot to do otherwise.

        • gena123

          Never condemned any to hell, he who is without sin and all that. Just reflecting back on you what your post really said, you are the one making value judgements, I was saying he’s entitled to his opinion, get your facts straight hon.

          • Nathan

            Your entire religion is based on condemning people to hell (in your words making “value judgments”), otherwise there is no point in positing what is by definition a belief system without evidence (i.e. faith). Why be a Christian or Muslim without the threat of hell? Let’s face it, the younger generations are increasingly abandoning such deluded and contradictory belief systems, which would help explain the audience’s muted reaction to Matthew McConaughey.

            I wasn’t making any “value judgement”. I wasn’t condemning Matthew McConaughey because of his statement. I frankly couldn’t care less. However, conjuring supernatural deities is not something worthy of anything more than a respectful nod. But of course, Fox News watchin “true” Christians think he deserves a bloody standing ovation for thanking a supernatural deity. Pretty disgusting given the fact that millions of innocent people are dying as we speak in various parts of the world for absolutely no good reason.

          • gena123

            Who said it was MY religion? Again another value judgment. You think you know what I think because I disagreed with your rant against anyone who dares believe what you do not? Honey you’re as bias as they get. People die everyday for greed, power, disease, famine, murder etc… Having or not having faith has nothing to do with those deaths, your post is nonsensical.

    • robert anthony

      The ‘new scientific’ age…where Cecile Richards and Amanda Marcotte deem humans are ‘bacteria’ until they pass through that ‘magical’ gateway, the vagina.

      • Nathan

        That’s a classic non sequiter by changing the topic to abortion. But ok.

        • robert anthony

          It’s, actually, not at all an example of ‘abortion debate’. It’s just one example of this so-called ‘logic, reason, and evidence’ liberals believe they are the sole arbiters of. Where is the logic and science of believing people are only ‘magically’ human beings when they pass through the portals of the vagina? Nice try at evasion…but the point stands. Perhaps we should ask another secularist, like Henry Waxman, who believes there is tundra under the North Pole. When it comes to stupidity, ignorance and ‘magical thinking’ the left is rife with it.

          • Nathan

            Science doesn’t care whether you are liberal or conservative and plenty of both accept science as the only rational way to obtain the truth, limited only by our technology. You’re obviously afraid of a world/society not dominated by bronze-age myths written by people who had absolutely no idea how the world worked.

    • astoriava

      Liberals never cease to amaze me when they throw the buzz-word “science” around, as if any of them have any idea what it is.

      • Plainlyspeaking

        Something that is even just marginally more credible than religion, even just a really teensy-weensy bit.

      • Nathan

        1) My view isn’t a “liberal” point of view. It’s a RATIONAL point of view.
        2) Science: a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

        Any questions???

  • Richard Jefferies

    Nobody expects the Atheist Inquisition!!!!!

    • astoriava

      There is lots of it on this board.

      • Halothane

        It’s how reading supposedly intelligent individuals rant on about their delusional beliefs that gets me upset.

        Keep your psychotic beliefs to your damned self.

        Humanity is slowly progressing towards the realization that religion is holding us back, like an unnecessary weight on the back of someone trying to claw their way out of a dark, dank hole.

  • willc

    The question is: which god was he referring to?

    • astoriava

      I think he’d answer that rather easily – try asking perhaps?

    • Halothane

      L. Ron Hubbard, of course!

  • Nick Mordowanec

    I’m sure an invisible being helped MM win that Academy Award. Are people this dense? (Don’t answer that.)

  • Rationalthinker

    I have to agree with that tweet that said that Woody (the pedophile) got a bigger round of applause . That says volumes to the mindset of Hollyweird.

    • TrollBaby

      Lol, and I bet you stand with Nugent too. Fk out of here!

      • Rationalthinker

        With that moniker, I’ll refrain from telling you something that you probably already are aware of….
        Oh, and Ted says to tell you “Eat his clinkers.”…

        • TrollBaby

          Nugent also made a song about have sex with 12 year olds. Typical of conservatives to support the same things they accuse liberals of. Next time try harder.

          • Rationalthinker

            See, the difference is..His was a S O N G . But I wouldn’t expect you to be able to differentiate between artistic license and reality . Chuck Berry sang about 16 yr’ olds. .Typical of you to have no argument. Please stick to subjects that you actually understand.

          • TrollBaby

            Lol, you really have no clue do you? Or maybe you’re a pedophile as well? Nugent gave an tv interview where he admitted having an addiction to sex with underage girls! It’s on youtube…educate yourself, because making you look like a tool is too easy.

          • Rationalthinker

            As usual…Liberal name-calling and sketchy facts. I bet you quote Wikipedia,too. Still, thank goodness we have people like McConaughey in the world to show us true humility. It makes stomaching azz-wipes like troll, a lot easier But, thanks for showing us what the bottom of a shoe in a dog park looks like. Now, please crawl back under that rock, punk.

          • TrollBaby

            Lol, so now that you are out of excuses for supporting a pedophile, you switch the convo back to McConaughey! Typical disgusting conservative trash, pathetic! Remember google is your friend

          • Rationalthinker

            I bet Google is YOUR friend…you should try an actual person, some day.
            Sorry for staying on topic…something you wouldn’t know, being such a conversational hack.
            I’m done…be gone little gnat, with your baseless name calling . What are you, five?

          • TrollBaby

            Yes google is my friend. It allows you to dig up all sorts of information, like Ted Nugent molesting Courtney Love when she was 12. Ye tyou sit here defending him…..gross dude…I can help you find professional services for your problems, but the first step is admitting them.

    • astoriava

      So you think god is imaginary but woody allens as a pedophile is not? I think there is far less evidence that Allen is a pedophile than that there is a God.

  • ClydeCrashcup

    “Amen. Although, it is also sad that speaking of your faith must now be
    an act of bravery.” Yes, we now live in a world of:”Lallah
    Lickbutt” as “The” one & only, sacred/cough/barf/painfully
    farted, safe proclamation of Faith.Sorry4crude but islamcult evil. Yes?

  • Tazay

    Im trying to figure out if the people here who say that “Its brave for him to do that” are joking or not.

    If they’re not. How is it brave to thank God in a Christian Dominant country? It’s like saying “I love women.” No impact and no risk at anything. The fact he didn’t get a standing ovation is AWESOME. Shows how far we’ve come and that the majority of Hollywood doesn’t need to thank a myth for an award.

    • Mango

      That’s the problem right there, you’re convinced that God doesn’t exist so that means it’s true. Well, that’s not true for a whole hell of a lot of people in the world. How you know for sure that there is no God or divine being of any kind is beyond me. I’m not religious or particularly spiritual, but I’m open minded enough to realize that I might not have it all figured out. And I’m not going to try to convince others that my beliefs and opinions about the universe are absolute truth when really there’s no way to know for sure. That’s what it means to be tolerant, knowing you might be wrong, no matter how sure you are.

      • Invertex

        We know it’s true just as much as we know that fairies and Santa aren’t actually real. Can we prove those things don’t actually exist? No, because there is no way to test that. But we can use our brains and come to the conclusion that it is pretty ridiculous to think they do exist, based on all we know now. If some evidence comes to light in the future that proves otherwise, we will gladly accept God, fairies or Santa. But until then, it’s just silly, especially to thank your success on a believed in deity.

        I think it’s about time religious people got a taste of their own medicine. For centuries now, non-believers have been persecuted, shamed and made to feel like shit, even killed in earlier days. Children are even dying today from people believing God will cure them, instead of seeking medical treatment that would have saved them. And then we get into the bullshit of how it’s affecting actual science, such as evolution or global warming. Or the taking advantage of poor and sick people in third world countries to promote your dogma in return for aid, instead of helping out purely from the goodness of your heart. It’s sick.

        • Mango

          You can think organized religion is sick all you like, there are certain times where I absolutely agree. But that’s not the same as spirituality or believing in some sort of divine being. I personally don’t believe in one, but declaring that the belief is silly and akin to Santa and fairies is not a way to sway people to your side. It’s disrespectful and intolerant. Think what you want, but people live good principled lives based on their faith, to them it’s not silly, it guides them through life. Who are you to say that they shouldn’t need that? Is their faith hurting you personally? I don’t quite understand why an actor thanking God for what he has in life should be so offensive, he’s not cramming God down your throat, he’s just acknowledging his belief and that it’s important to him. He should be able to do that in a tolerant society where we have to accept everyone and everything else.

          • Guest

            Mango, I just want to say that I find your thoughts to be some of the most reasonable and open-minded things I’ve probably ever read online. It’s encouraging to see that other people are capable of

          • Guest

            Gee thanks!

          • Gray

            Mango, I just want to say that I find your thoughts to be some of the most reasonable and open-minded things I’ve probably ever read online. It’s encouraging to see that other people are capable of keeping an open mind despite differing views. I, too, am in a similar situation. I do not believe in a God, but I still believe I should respect the rights of others to do so. It would be hypocritical for me to disrespect their religions just because I don’t agree with them. I always try to keep my mind open in these situations. While I don’t necessarily agree that Christian persecution is as prevalent in this country as many Christians like to claim (I know, as I was once one of them), I still think it’s important to be fair in these situations. So thank you for that.

          • Halothane

            I have to call it like it is. You want to be a religious apologist, feel free. I won’t tolerate that kind of b.s. thinking. Disrespectful and intolerant are what the religious cling to. Now, suddenly they realize that people are not accepting faith and belief in the bible blindly. That has put them in a defensive stance. It’s about time.

            Their faith has hurt mankind personally. It has blunted scientific progress and caused untold numbers of people for millenia pain and suffering.

            Yes, he can acknowledge his belief system, just like Travolta and Cruise can express their belief in the sham Scientology, or a Mormon can profess belief in the ridiculous writings of Joseph Smith, etc. But for the religious to criticize the crowd for not applauding? Ridiculous.

            Imagine if he had said, I want to thank Allah, or I want to thank Vishnu, or I want to thank the Crow Spirit. People would not know what the hell to make of that. Why should the Judeo-Christian god be any different?

          • Mango

            Wow…you “won’t tolerate that b.s. thinking.” You know, that’s kind of what the popes of the Christian crusades thought about Muslims and Jews occupying Jerusalem…allowing them to stay was the “b.s. thinking that couldn’t be tolerated.” That lack of tolerance led to the crusades…ya know where like a lot of people died needlessly in the name of religion, the very people you are invoking to make your point. The mistakes of the past should not be used as justification for your prejudice of the present. That’s no different than hating white people because of slavery, despite the fact that none of us living today had anything to do with it.

            Again, you’re very unfairly stereotyping by saying that “the religious cling to disrespect and intolerance.” Sorry, that simply isn’t true. I know religious people and they’re much more respectful and tolerant of others than liberal non religious people could ever hope to be. What makes you any better than them if your’e just as disrespectful and intolerant? These people in Hollywood are criticized because of their hypocrisy, always claiming to be accepting and open while denegrating those of religion, particularly Christianity, which is an easy target, God forbid any of them criticize Islam, which they won’t do because that’s not the hip thing to do. I don’t know where you got the cow spirit from, but if MM were a Muslim who thanked Allah, I’m not sure why that would be confusing to anyone…especially those who are as intellectual, scientific, and “open minded” as you. I’m not an apologist for anyone or anything, but I am a crusader against hypocrisy.

          • Halothane

            Your using the crusades as an example of intolerance, but it was intolerance of other religions by another religion. It was the ever arrogant belief that the Jesus Christ was the end all and be all, the last word, in religion.
            We all know what a load of crap that is; any religion that purports itself as “the truth” it’s bull$hit.

            With regards to your slavery comment, I am of the belief that although I am a first generation U.S. citizen, the fact that I’m taking advantage of the freedoms and benefits that exist because of the annihilation of the native American tribes, and of the millions of Africans who were enslaved, makes me not entirely free from guilt.

            The crow (not cow) spirit is from native American culture.

            As individuals I’m sure there are very humble and respectful religious people. But as a group, especially when led by zealots, they are insufferable.

          • Mango

            There are insufferable people in every group and category out there, including atheists. An atheist running around declaring every religion or the idea of divinity to be a “load of crap” to me, is no better or worse than the zealots of faiths preaching the opposite. I do not believe it is possible to know with absolute certainty that there is or is not some sort of divine being out there, hence, my refusal to bash anyone who believes it. Again, tolerance doesn’t mean blindly embracing every facet of organized religion or dismissing all of the horror committed in the name of God throughout history, but Christians today are not going on crusades, most of them are just trying to live life with their faith included so I see no need to disparage them. I think it’s hypocritical that we as a society pride ourselves on how accepting we are, and if we don’t accept something that means we’re bigots while those same people calling us bigots are those telling Christians that their religion and beliefs are either offensive or irrelevant. How is that ok and not hypocritical? Christianity seems to be a favorite target of the left, which I find despicable, I challenge anyone to find an example of some leftist commentator criticizing Allah or Islam…I can’t imagine that exists because they’re afraid to do it. It doesn’t matter if you believe what they believe or not, the fact is, that in America, they should be free to believe it without persecution…perhaps that’s too strong a word, but you catch my drift.

            Every American, first generation or not, shares in the history of this country, the history belongs to all of us and we should own it. But the freedoms that we have here are not because of the atrocities committed against Native Americans and the horror of slavery. We are free because our Founding Fathers created a nation where all men are created equal and wrote a Constitution that tells us what the Federal Government cannot do to us. The shameful chapters in our history are just that, shameful, but they did not create the free country that we have today. It’s the spirit of freedom and equality that ended those chapters and ensured that they never happened again. America has always been and will continue to be a work in progress. We should mourn and feel shame over the bad stuff in our history, but no American should feel guilty for being an American.

          • Halothane

            I’m sorry but your version of the origins of our country are very misguided. We did NOT create a nation “where all men are created equal”.

            I agree that we are a work in progress and that this conversation is an example of that work in progress.

            I will stand by my principles. Religion must take a back seat to science and reason. It cannot be the yard stick by which we determine legitimacy.

          • Mango

            Just because I don’t feel guilty for being an American and wallow in the bad parts of our history does not mean that I’m misguided. “All men are created equal” is a guiding principle that led to the creation of this country, it was the reason to create it in the first place, we’re still working towards that today, but it if we as a people haven’t learned anything at all and haven’t risen above our own shortcomings in the name of that equality that our Founding Fathers began we would still have slavery and segregation and all that other garbage. I’m not sure of any other country before this one that had such a founding principle. So I stand by my “version.” Never said religion is a yardstick by which we determine legitimacy, but it has a place in this country whether certain people like it or not. If you’re allowed to be atheist others should be allowed to be a person of faith. We should be celebrating diversity by living with it side by side, not behind closed doors. That’s real tolerance.

        • gena123

          Any belief system can be used badly, people are stupid, doesn’t make religion evil, communism killed 150million people in the 20th century because they didn’t believe like them, they persecute religion to this day in China and N.Korea. Religion has done a lot of good, see Catholic social services, Christian aid programs, mother Theresa etc… Science is NOT an absolute, it changes as facts come to light, a real scientist will tell you that.

        • Halothane

          Amen! Ooops, I mean, Damn straight!!

      • Dave

        How about some proof, any proof other than your opion nthat there is a god to be thanking.

        • Mango

          You didn’t read my post, or comprehend any of it obviously. I said, that I’m not religious or spiritual, what about that says that “I believe God or a god exists?” I’ll spell it out again, I don’t pretend to have it all figured out, hence, I’m not going to run around posting about how much more superior my intellect is because I don’t believe in God. I do not believe in God, but I know that I don’t know for sure if he exists or doesn’t exist. And you don’t know either. Your belief doesn’t translate into fact. And where is your proof that there ISN’T a god to be thanking?

        • Prospector

          Simple test: Do you believe your loved ones have souls? If not, then God does not exist for you. If so, you never need to wonder again.

        • jaydee007

          I can provide Evidence that the Account in Genesis is Accurate as to Origins of Humans.

          Studies to determine common ancestry have resulted in evidence that there is a Common Ancestor (that is a single common ancestry lineage to humans)

          In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

          Each ancestor (of people now living) in the line back to the matrilineal MRCA had female contemporaries such as sisters, female cousins, etc. and some of these female contemporaries may have descendants living now (with one or more males in their discordancy line). But none of the female contemporaries of the “Mitochondrial Eve” has descendants living now in an unbroken female line.

          Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.

          Mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial “Eve”, Y-chromosomal “Adam” probably lived in Africa; however, “Eve” lived much earlier than this “Adam” – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.

          This provides evidence that the account in the Book of Genesis is, in fact, Accurate.

          • Plainlyspeaking

            So let’s see. You’ve just taken a piece of science (exhibit square peg A) and a bit of fiction ie Genesis (exhibit round hole B) and battered the hell out one to make it fit the other with nothing more than your will. Great. Very convincing. Wanna have another try? (Clue: it will take someone with greater intellectual capacity than you to even make a decent half-fist of it).

          • jaydee007

            Show me where I’m wrong, ridicule is not Refutation.

          • Halothane

            Your conclusion is wrong! It’s wishful thinking on your part! A desire to make the scientific theory fit your bible!!!

          • jaydee007

            Again, I’ve provided evidence, you are just ridiculing, that is not a refutation.
            SHOW me where I am wrong.

          • Halothane

            ROFLMAO!

          • jaydee007

            Laughter is not Refutation!

          • Halothane

            Neither are your conclusions!

            That’s a pretty sweet theory you’ve got there. Let me guess, you also think that certain parts of the bible are allegory (7 days to create the world) and others are to be taken literally (the burning bush)?

            So, the dinosaurs? Evolution? Natural selection? Allegory or literal interpretation?

            The only thing sadder than literalist interpretations of the bible are the interpretations that try to mix n match scientific theories with delusional religious sophisms.

          • jaydee007

            Circular Logic Much?
            Your argument is essentially Heads I win Tails You Loose.
            A.K.A. Stupidity.
            Show me how this does NOT support the account in Genesis.

          • Halothane

            Allright “jaydee007”, let’s see. You are assuming that the genesis story in the bible is correct based on the fact that mDNA has revealed a common ancestor (female) and that Y-chromosomal analysis has yielded evidence for a common male ancestor.

            You go on to state that “Eve” existed 50-80,000 years before Adam, which goes against what the bible says. Let’s allow a liberal and allegorical interpretation of the bible, even so, Eve before Adam doesn’t make sense.

            The point you are ignoring is what led to this common mDNA “Eve” ancestor? She was created out of clay after a deity breathed life into her? Or did she come from 2,000,000,000 years of natural selection and evolution?

            The only circular logic in this forum is from the religious. God exists because the bible says so and the bible is the word of said god, therefore, he exists.

          • jaydee007

            Clearly you have NEVER read the account of Genesis, or you lack an understanding of Mitochondrial DNA as well as Y Chromosomes.

            You also don’t know what the account of Genesis says. Or you are completely ignorant of BOTH.

            You said, “You go on to state that “Eve” existed 50-80,000 years before Adam, which goes against what the bible says.”
            Yet, In the Context of Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome tracing the Bible says no such thing.
            C.S. Lewis was a person who argued against the Bible, but because he was a thinking mind, he Actually Read what he was Ridiculing – and in doing so became a major apologist for the account of the Bible.

            Apparently you are afraid of the same thing.

            Anyway, I can show you Exactly where the Bible Refutes what you say it says, but you cannot show me where the Bible Refutes what I say.

          • Halothane

            I have read your bible. Adam lonely, Eve created out of rib, hence the reason we have a floating rib.

            Mitochondria have been involved in eukaryotic cells since their existence, I believe, and have their own genetic code.

            The Y chromosome has the genetic information for maleness.

            I don’t understand your point about “In the context of mDNA and Y chromosome tracing the bibile says no such thing…”

            Please show me where in the bible is there something that refutes what I said. You will only show me where the bible contradicts itself with its version of creation.

            I would never show you the bible to refute anything, except when refuting its legitimacy.

          • jaydee007

            In other words – You Don’t Know!
            So you refute with ridicule out of Total Ignorance
            You claim it says things out of total ignorance
            And You Have no understanding of Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome traces.
            .
            So to tell me what the Bible does say you are being like the Media that criticized Sarah Palin regarding her statements regarding Paul Revere. She knew the actual history and they knew the Tennyson poem. They were Wrong and She was Right.

          • jaydee007

            I have provided evidence of the Legitimacy of the Biblical Account of Genesis, and you don’t know enough of the Science or the Content of the book of Genesis to actually Refute it so you simply Ridicule with no evidence.
            I’ve provided Evidence you have not!
            Either prove my evidence does not fit with the biblical account or STFU

          • Halothane

            I will stop feeding you troll.

          • Halothane

            And you haven’t addressed my point regarding Eve and her origins. She didn’t just spring out of the earth or ocean like Venus.

          • jaydee007

            She was Created by God from Adam’s rib – where did you come up with springing out of the ocean?
            Again, where is your evidence regarding the fact that You said, “You go on to state that “Eve” existed 50-80,000 years before Adam, which goes against what the bible says.”
            and I answered “Yet, In the Context of Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome tracing the Bible says no such thing.”
            .
            I can show you the Bibles passage refuting you, show me the Bible’s passage supporting what you say it says.

          • Halothane

            LOL Eve – the mDNA Eve of our common ancestor. That Eve. Not the fairly tale Eve of the garden of eden.

            Where did our MRCAs come from? They were a product of 2,000,000,000 years of evolution and natural selection.

            The bible states that Adam and Eve were created by a god and were then exiled from the Eden for misbehaving. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of it. Care to elaborate then explain how Eve came before Adam?

          • jaydee007

            First of all, I never said Eve came before Adam.
            In fact I pointed out that Eve was created from the rib of Adam.

            Second, I posted the Scientific Evidence that I said that the results of the several scientific studies on the possibility of a common ancestor provided, “evidence that the account in the Book of Genesis is, in fact, Accurate.”

            You said, “You go on to state that “Eve” existed 50-80,000 years before Adam, which goes against what the bible says.” (for the sake of argument, let’s keep our FACTS straight. I sand no such thing. Since I was quoting Attini Sajanitila of the National Academy of Sciences, he was stuck on using the name Adam for the Y chromosome common Ancestor.)

            Anyway, Once again you provide no evidence that that is in fact what the bible says. Here’s a hint, It doesn’t.

            I tried to give you a hint, but since you have no concept of the science nor of the Content of the Book of Genesis you were unable to fathom your own ignorance and work past your desire to ridicule and possibly learn something.

            So, from here on I’ll type slowly so you can keep up with me.

            In the Book of Genesis it talks about the creation. But that is not where it ends. It goes on to tell of events that occurred long after the creation. At one point things got rotten. Really Rotten. So God decided it was time to have a Mulligan – a Do Over if you will.

            So he called on this fellow Noah, to build a big boat (they called it an ark, not like the ark in the Harrison Ford movie though.) And then the account of Genesis says there was a Flood.

            So in Genesis 7:13 it says;
            “In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;”

            So in the account of Genesis there are 8 survivors of the flood. 4 Men (all familially related) and 4 Women all unrelated.

            Understanding the way a Y chromosome trace would work and knowing that Noah’s three sons have no Y chromosome markers that are other than Noah’s, it is a logical conclusion that the Y chromosome trace for a common Ancestor would stop cold with Noah. There are no markers to trace beyond him.

            But the three wives of Noah’s sons and Noah’s wife were all unrelated, carrying a variety of Mitochondrial markers, so to trace a common ancestor female the path would lead all the way back to Eve.

            Therefore, I applied the science to the account in Genesis both Logically, and Accurately – where as you are simply bloviating nonsense from a position of both ignorance and arrogance!

        • astoriava

          Try the opposite – give some proof that the christisian concept of god does not exist?

          • juanaguilar

            It doesn’t work that way. The burden of proof is on you, the theists, to prove that something is there, not on atheists to prove it isn’t. What you’re doing is called an argument from ignorance, which asserts that a proposition is true (the existence of God) because it hasn’t been proven false. An atheistic argument is self-evident and logically sound: There is no evidence God exists, so until I see evidence, I’ll assume it doesn’t. An argument from ignorance is the opposite: there is no evidence this doesn’t exist, therefore I’ll assume it does. Although these statements appear similar, they are not the same logical proposition. It’s sort of like saying “if it’s fire, it is hot.” True, right? Well, “if it’s hot, it is fire” is clearly not true, as there are demonstrably many things that are hot but aren’t fire. See how that works? So again, the burden of proof is on you to positively prove the existence of God, not on atheists to disprove His/its existence.

          • astoriava

            Avoiding the question I see….. Try proving a thought or feeling exist – with the senses only…. Nonetheless, these people have not called you “stupid” or any of the variety of mental insults throws at christians.

          • juanaguilar

            I’m not avoiding the question at all. Reread the thread, I stated that it is illogical to disprove something for which no proof exists. No one ever says “prove dragons don’t exist” because there isn’t any proof that they do, thus no compelling logical reason to think they do. See how that works? Now, in this thread, an atheist asked for proof of God’s existence and instead got a non-answer in the form of “well, you prove he doesn’t.” You are avoiding the question, not me. Again, you’re the one making a positive assertion (God exists), so the burden of proof is on you. You’re also trying to move the goalpost by talking about the existence of feelings and an irrelevant rant about insults. But if you want to ignore logic, let’s approach this with basic rules of decorum: we asked you first. Now please, stop being obtuse and submit your proof or accept your position as illogical.

          • jaydee007

            Actually we don’t need to prove anything, all we need to do is tell you about it and you get to make up your own mind.
            Then, when you find out the truth, and it’s too late, you cannot say it is our fault for not telling you.
            Enjoy the Eternity you have chosen for yourself.
            P.S. You may profit from looking up Pascal’s Theorem.

          • juanaguilar

            Yes, thank you, I’m duly warned. Now: you’re changing what we’re talking about. It’s fine that you feel no responsibility to guide me into the light, so to speak, I even prefer it that way. What I was saying is that faith in God and proof of His existence are two different things. Again, from a logical (as opposed to faith-based) point of view, there is no evidence or compelling reason to believe any god, let alone the specifically Christian god, exists. In order to say “this is the thing that makes the most logical sense,” you have to provide proof. Since atheists are basically saying “I don’t believe God this because no one has proven it exists,” that is more logically sound than saying “I will believe in God with no proof until someone proves this idea is untrue.” It’s impossible to disprove what has not yet been proven. Now, if you say, “faith is good enough for me” great! Believe and be faithful, I have no problem with that! But if you try to say that your logic equal to mine, sadly, no. I don’t really see why you’d disagree, as faith in God means you believe in an entity who can bend the rules at will: in other words, according to your worldview, I can be on more sound logical footing, but still be damned to hell for my lack of (drumroll) faith! And you meant Pascal’s Wager; what’s interesting about that is that it actually concedes that there’s no objective proof of God’s existence, hence believing in him with no proof is a beneficial wager, as the potential benefit outweighs the risk. Still, it wouldn’t be a wager if you knew He existed as a certainty. You see how that works?

          • jaydee007

            ” Again, from a logical (as opposed to faith-based) point of view, there is no evidence or compelling reason to believe any god, let alone the specifically Christian god, exists. ”
            Actually, there is Plenty of Evidence – you just choose to Ignore or Rationalize it.

          • juanaguilar

            Uh huh. I’ve seen a lot of people mention this evidence, but when pressed, you have no responsibility to provide it. “Actually we don’t need to prove anything, all we need to do is tell you about it,” remember? So again: care to provide this evidence? Just suppose I’m stupid and don’t know how to use Google. Or do a good deed and point me in the right direction. Let me tell you, I would love to believe there’s an omnipotent being who loves me and I’ll be eternally happy if I just love him back. That’s awesome on it’s face, you don’t need to explain why that idea is appealing. If I could believe it, I would, but unfortunately, my stubborn mind demands evidence before it produces belief. So pretty please, the evidence. I don’t understand why you insist on laying claim to logic AND being stubborn about backing up your claims objectively. It’s almost as if you can’t…

          • Halothane

            Why should anyone have to prove the non-existence of this mass delusion?

      • Tazay

        There is no evidence of any sort. If someone came up to me and told me that there was a god, then provided undeniable proof that there was one, then I’d pick up a bible and work my best to please him. But so far, nothing. Not one shred of proof that there is a god of any sort. And considering the amount of mythical gods out there what make any of the current ones any less mythical? What makes the modern day religions any more true than Ancient Greek beliefs, or the Nordic Gods? They aren’t. Its all myths created to explain a world that we didn’t understand nearly as well today, and we wont understand nearly as well as we will in the future. We fill in the gaps with our imaginations, and that just happens to be the belief that there is a “God” out there controlling everything, so that we can shake off the burden of our own choices and say “God exists and it is his plan.”

        I was done being tolerant of religion when I realized that most religions are calling “Discrimination” without any need to. Religions are not being marginalized or discriminated against, they’re being phased out for a more accurate, and provable science. Religions are a barbaric form of explaining the universe that we have no need for anymore. It’s just people afraid to let go of the idea that there is a paradise waiting for them. Its people who are too afraid to face the current reality.

    • astoriava

      A sampling of the target audience was certainly not a fair representative of the citizenry of the Christian Dominant country. The target audience overall tends to be anti-christian, atheist, and self-worshiping. Bravery is based upon what he said to his target audience – the leftie libbie narcisstic celeb types… so he was indeed very brave.

      • Plainlyspeaking

        Have another wholesome rant to yourself. How many a day? A word of warning though, nobody cares.

        Apparently it typically raises your risk of heart attack or stroke five-fold.

        • mzk1_1

          Actually, a lot of people do care. I see you can’t stand rational argument – probably explains your holding such irrational beliefs.

          • Halothane

            Rational argument withers in the presence of religious faith.

  • Johnny Apple Seed

    MM won a lot of fans with his acceptance speech. Good for him.

  • Jim Buchan

    I thought we had freedom of religion in this country? I guess we need freedom from religion too. Christians have had carte blanche in this country since the 1800s and any disagreement or an audience not giving thundering applause is PERSECUTION. Matthew is free to speak as he wants and a funny thing people earlier were bitching about him not mentioning the AIDS struggle.

    • astoriava

      Have any posters claimed christian persecution? Hallucinating again? Did any posters blast any other person who did not thank God in his/her speech? Judging from the evidence I’d say you have quite a bit of freedom from religion so quit your persecution complex.

      • Plainlyspeaking

        How dishonest! That’s a sin, I beleive.

        • astoriava

          Repeat – Did any posters blast any other person for not thanking God in their acceptance speech? Perhaps lying is not a “sin” in your book but I for one disrespect atheists who do it.

          • juanaguilar

            Wow. Such denial. When you suggest that it was brave of MM to say this (as many, many posters here have done), it’s implicit that there is risk. An action can’t be brave if there’s no inherent risk, right? Other posters have also referenced “intolerance” from atheists. So yes, there is definitely a notion of Christian persecution in this thread, despite that no one seems to have used that exact verbiage. You’re playing semantic games.

    • mzk1_1

      I’m not a Christian and I can see that your statement is idiotic. And by your stating that “we need freedom from religion” you are implying that the Constitution does not, in fact, guarantee such a right. In that you are correct. Please tell the Supreme Court.

  • JDW

    So many in the entertainment business labeled Julianne Moore’s “portrayal” (lampooning) of Sarah Palin as “brave.” Baloney. Matthew McConaughey openly showing respect for God at the Oscars… that’s brave.

  • Bryanna Holt Widener

    O.M.G. WHO CARES WHAT HOLLYWOOD THINKS!!!!!!! THEY NEED US!!!! WE DO NOT NEED THEM!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!

  • Scott

    Really, Dana, espousing a religious belief shared by 80% of Americans constitutes bravery to you?! You sure set the bar pretty low…

    • vino veritas

      She just meant it was a brave thing to do among that crowd who are mentally deranged freaks that are notorious for being anti-Christian. Hence their shallow attempt at applause. Relax and read the tweet again.

      • Plainlyspeaking

        “mentally deranged freaks”?

        What, don’t religious people not like a bit of honest competition?

  • Philip Sieve

    Maybe this was the audience at the Democrat convention in 2012. jamie Foxx was probably like, there is no god, but Obama. LOL

  • Juan David Lopez Velez

    “Brave” In a country where wanting to oppress others based on the word of that same God gets you votes, bravery isn’t involved.

  • cathy

    they took a best song away from a Christian writer and Hollywood was up in arms, thought they were going stone someone. So why am I not surprised?

  • LauraKat

    As I write this there are good people in the world being raped, tortured, murdered… and McConaughey thinks god is ignoring them but helping him to win an oscar?! What kind of a god would do that? Still better than Katy Perry who thinks god gave her bigger breasts because she prayed for them.

    • jaydee007

      “What kind of a god would do that?” You ask…
      The kind of God that gave to Man “Free Will” and then keeps his promise!
      Those “Good People” being raped and Murdered are being Raped and Murdered by Bad People – or didn’t you notice.
      It is the Bad People Doing It, Not God!
      And I guarantee you that not one of those Bad People will thank God for the Evil they have cultivated within themselves. Because it did not come from Him.

      • LauraKat

        Either god is active in people’s lives or he isn’t. If he helped Matthew McConaughey get an Oscar or Katy Perry have bigger breasts then he’s the type of god who chooses to do that while conversely not stopping horrendous acts being perpetrated against innocent adults and children. If he’s the type of god that doesn’t interfere at all then why would you thank him? Thank you god for letting my life play out exactly as it would if you didn’t exist? For that matter, if god doesn’t interfere in people’s lives why would you even believe in him when his existence or lack of it makes no difference to the world.

        Sorry the free will argument doesn’t work for me. How is it right for someone all powerful to sit by and allow a bad person their free will, when that bad person’s free will involves taking away someone else’s by taking their liberty or life.

        Anyway an all knowing god would know that those bad people were going to do horrendous things in their life and allowed them to be born anyway. They have free will to do exactly what he knew they were going to do. I’d much prefer a world with no god than a world with a god who thinks this is a good system. Luckily for me there’s no evidence that any god interferes at all so a world with no god is exactly what I’ve got.

        • jaydee007

          Sorry, God is NOT a Communist.

    • robert anthony

      That’s not God doing that…that’s people who CHOOSE evil over good. It’s that simple. God’s role, for example, might be to send in rescue, for good people to do something…alas, America sits on it’s hands in regards to Nigeria, for example.
      Another example, a Christian group that rescued teen prostitutes from the streets had their funding cut by Obama…that’s not God wanting evil to happen to these girls. That’s Obama being an example of ‘evil prospers when good men do nothing.’.

      • Plainlyspeaking

        “That’s not God doing that”

        It is God doing that because it is people doing it in the name of God. God is the manifestation of the will of a particular group of people, nothing more, nothing less. God does nothing, not even in mysterious ways. That just an absolutely pathetic excuse for human behaviour.

        • mzk1_1

          Yet more people have been murdered in the name of atheism in the twentieth century alone than by all religions in all of human history.

          • juanaguilar

            Back up this claim. Where are you getting this information?

          • robert anthony

            It’s very easy to look up…you’ve heard of Google search?

          • juanaguilar

            No, you see, it’s not my responsibility to verify someone else’s claims, the onus is on them to prove that what they said is true. It’s also easier to be a smartass than give a straight answer, but you already know that.

          • Halothane

            Ridiculous. Let me guess, you’re going to conjure Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

            They were playing catch up (though they didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they were supposedly heathens to organized religions) to the three millennia of religious murder.

            Get your facts straight. Oh wait, do the religious even believe in facts?

        • robert anthony

          Name this raping and torturing done in the name of Christ….????….allah, yes,…..Planned Parenthood, sure…..examples in Christ?

      • LauraKat

        So how do you explain the numerous times when no rescue is ‘sent in’?

        • robert anthony

          For Pete’s Sake!…I just did!

          • LauraKat

            Oh right, Obama ROFL

            I guess your god isn’t the all knowing kind then.

          • robert anthony

            I gave you an example…from which I assumed anyone with a functioning brain could extrapolate and realize a broader picture…I shouldn’t assume, I guess.

          • LauraKat

            It’s just hilarious to me because blaming Obama for everything has become a bit of a meme.

            So you’re pulling out the personal attacks now suggesting my brain isn’t functioning?

            It’s functioning well enough to realise that an all knowing god who knows that the help he sends in is going to fail is no better than a god who does nothing to stop atrocities.

    • astoriava

      Did he say he “thinks god is ignoring them” or is that your assumption? After all your god-like qualities gave you mind reading talents – right? I think you presume to know the mind of God and McConaughey.

      • LauraKat

        McConaughey implied that he was thankful for his god’s influence in his life, which suggests he thinks god is able to interact and influence people’s lives to make good things happen to them. Conversely, there are many good people who have terrible things happen to them and no god interferes on their behalf. There are innocent babies who are raped for example. I think it’s quite likely that McConaughey hasn’t considered those two conflicting propositions but what I’m suggesting is basic logic.

        Statement 1: god has the power to influence people’s lives to make good things happen to them (implied by McConaughey).

        Statement 2: god does not prevent babies from being raped.

        Statement 3: If a god is good and he has the power to influence people’s lives then he would not allow babies to be raped.

        Conclusion: Either god does not have the power to influence people’s lives, in which case why thank him, or god is not good, in which case why thank him?!

    • APW

      Wow. Did you listen to what he said? Or just interpret according to your angry mindset?

    • mzk1_1

      What are atheists so intolerant? Do they have some sort of mental condition?

      • Halothane

        Yes. It’s called rationality. Atheist don’t need to conjure imaginary beings and fairy tales to explain things.

        Now the religious too have a mental condition: psychosis, delusional, “god complex”, to name a few.

        • Recon5

          Hmn. Sure you’re not confusing them with Hobbes?

          • Halothane

            No. I’m sure I’m talking about the religulous.

      • LauraKat

        Yes they do! It’s called rational thinking and it’s not so bad.

  • Nonameworks

    When LJ Cool started the Grammies with a prayer after Whitney Houston died, there were people in the crowd checking out their manicures.
    So you don’t believe? Fine. Just some respect would be courteous.

    • Plainlyspeaking

      If you decide to rashly flaunt your beliefs in front of an audience that you didn’t invite for that purpose, for example, a church audience, you have no more right to be treated with respect than anyone else, and at least no more respect than the wantonly pious are prepared to show to the non-religious. You ain’t a special category.

      • mzk1_1

        We always show you respect. Do we have a choice? See what thanks we get. And people ALWAYS flaunt their beliefs at the Oscars.

        • Halothane

          Ha! You show “respect” when your creeds are adhered to. Against opposition or free thought, the religious spiral ever towards intolerance, ignorance, hatred, and genocide.

          • Recon5

            Oh, horsesh*t. That’s a multi-syllabic response for “forgot my f’ing argument at home.”

          • Halothane

            Hardly. Though you are pretty adept at stringing multi-syllabic phrases together yourself. You just can’t handle the truth, so you make $hit up.

          • DevilDog Ding

            Just like Jesus did, eh?

          • Halothane

            Who?

          • DevilDog Ding

            If that name doesn’t ring a bell, you ought not to be talking about how people of faith behave because you don’t know sh*t from shinola.

      • Recon5

        “you have no more right to be treated with respect than anyone else”

        That’s a two-way street, cupcake. Careful what you wish for.

      • DevilDog Ding

        Kinda like performers trash talking their liberal politics to an audience that came to hear/watch them perform, right?

  • Daryl Watson

    His acting career is over.

    • Mick_Pearson

      No it’s not. Wouldabeen Couldabeen is gonna be alright, alright, alright.

  • Jeaff Seassions

    What so amazing about MM’s ‘belief in God”? Nearly 90% of Americans believe in God – of some sort. Heck, even Satan believes in God. So what? Anyone who says- like MM did – “I look up to God” is simply speaking pablum (baby’s milk). No real substance. In fact, it actually sounds sacriligious. Besides, as the bible says “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.” And the Will of the Father is to follow His Son, Jesus Christ. Anything less is complete failure. – [email protected]

  • Jeaff Seassions

    “People are excited” about chaos (atheism) from order (Christian religion). Yep. And you are *happy* about it. That’s sad you are *happy* about other’s hopelessness. That is your perogative.
    But still sad.

    • davidshaw

      Atheism does not equal chaos or hopelessness. That’s your own closeminded bias shining through. As someone who was raised christian for over 20 years I can tell you I’ve never been happier than when I stopped believing in some judgmental wizard in the sky who doesn’t want me to live my life and be the person I am. Grow up. Santa isn’t real. The easter bunny isn’t real. God isn’t real.

  • http://Handsome.com kG

    It was the most self absorbed and inappropriate acceptance speech I had ever heard . No ,not becouse he mentioned god but becouse he pretty much called himself the greatest thing next to god! Calling himself his own greatest hero! God prabably puked just as every one else wanted to that heard this jerk!

    • DevilDog Ding

      Yeah, Probably. Idiot.

  • Rich Rodgers

    well it’s because he was cheating, obviously.

  • DevilDog Ding

    Whores sweat in church.

    • Halothane

      I love whores, except to me they are free thinking, independent, and not uptight about sex.

      Whore has such negative connotations! Most men, by definition, are the prime example of whorish behavior. So why the double standard?

      • DevilDog Ding
        • Halothane

          Ah, David Carradine, you sure know how to make a lady feel wanted!

      • Recon5

        By all means. Let’s all make the lowest common denominator the gold f’ing standard.

        • Halothane

          I don’t know what you are referring to? Whores? Atheists?

          The me the LCD is the religious. They are the vast majority of this planet and amongst them are the least educated as well.

          Whore is a male-made word to describe the behavior of a woman that wouldn’t recognize their advances.

  • Halothane

    He can thank whoever he wants, including the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

    More important, the producer of 12 Years A Slave is a self professed Israeli spy who stole nuclear secrets from the US and shipped them to Israel.

    http://undertheradar.military.com/2014/03/admitted-spy-shows-up-for-oscars-and-wins/

    This goes unpunished and he is not arrested. Instead he continues to prosper and work in this country. That is the true disgrace here.

    Scarlett Johansson supports a company situated in an illegal settlement and no one challenges her on it. Another disgrace.

    • mzk1_1

      Note the natural convergence of anti-Semitism, atheism, and liberalism.

      • Halothane

        “Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”

        Ariel Sharon in a discussion with Shimon Peres,
        October 3, 2001

  • Gadsden Purchase

    I’ve found this to be a useful beacon in the ever-shifting fog of illusions conjured up by today’s liberals and progressives: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

    • Halothane

      “Waste of time and money….”

  • George Murrey

    Why would anybody expect anything less from the crowd? Only a few took the time to give credence to a guy who knows who’s first in his life, and he even admitted it. This is what has been missing in hollyweird for years. Let’s hope that many will start following his example and won’t be so sheepish in the future.

  • stu collins

    To thank an invisible sky being who’s follower never traveled more that 90 miles from there home in there lifetime is akin to thanking Thor for his success. ….do you really think a gid would help him to win an Oscar while letting billions of people starve on this pale blue dot? ??

  • Eric Scott

    It’s just a shame that the 30,000 people who died from starvation on the day of the Oscars didn’t get to hear his speech. It might have given them peace to know God was taking care of Matthew’s career as their internal organs shut down.

  • BoomerMan

    Dear Matt….. On the day of your acceptance speech, 30,000 human beings starved to death across the planet. People were shot in home burglaries, kidnapped by thugs, physically and emotionally devastated by rapists. Children died horribly of leukemia. Loved ones received news that their mothers, fathers, siblings and closest friends were killed in accidents. Natural disasters wiped out cities, communities, homes, families, precious lives. So the assertion that God above ignored the needs of the genuinely needy and the cries of the afflicted so that he could focus his power on making you pretty and talented? That isn’t humble. In fact, upon examination, the mere notion is offensive to our deepest integrity.

    – See more at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/79/Id-Like-to-Thank-God-and-the-Academy#sthash.kRp0E3qi.dpuf

    • mzk1_1

      And thus once again it is proven that atheism is the nastiest, bigoted, most intolerant religion ever to exist. But what do you want from a religion that holds the all-time record for mass-murder?

      • Halothane

        Oh please. Your ignorance is showing again. Bigotry against bigotry is not bigotry.

        Intolerance against ignorance is what atheism represents. Religion needs to stop taking itself so seriously. It is no different than astrology, alchemy, and phrenology.

        • juanaguilar

          Disagree. Astrology, alchemy, and phrenology attempt (and fail, but hey, points for trying) to apply the scientific method. Also, phrenology busts are neat.

          • Halothane

            Not that I want to argue, but are you aware of the mountains of religious literature using philosophy, logic, and reason, to give religion a “scientific” raison d’être?

            I think they are all basically the same. Pseudo-scientific, quasi-spiritual, and 99.99…% bull $hit.

          • juanaguilar

            Lighten up, I was agreeing, just in a humorous way. maybe I needed an “/s” tag.

          • Halothane

            No, I get it. Hence why I said I didn’t want to argue. I didn’t want there to be any confusion on any one else’s part. :-)

            Phrenology busts are neat! I’m gonna go find my calipers 😛

          • juanaguilar

            Fair enough! Forgive me for sounding hostile, I have the sloping brow of a stagecoach handler due to my Esquimaux heritage.

      • BoomerMan

        ….”the all-time record for mass-murder?”

        Think again and do a little reading. You can start here if you’d like. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/jdbrucker/name-christ-short-travel-christianity-s-bloody-past-part-1

    • Recon5

      Shorter atheist: if there really is a God, why aren’t we all immortal theological slave- drones chained to his purpose? Why do natural laws apply to the God-Man of our own creation? Why does the earth still release pressure instead of getting all blowed up? Why is man still subject to culling by the non-drones?

      Signed,

      #feckingmystified

  • jazaniac

    “speaking of your faith is an act of bravery”
    Yeah, ok there mr. 80% Christian country, that’s some true courage

  • Terry Fields Jr.

    I don’t understand this new victim mentality that amongst Christians

  • mzk1_1

    Why are atheist commenters determined to give their co-religionists a bad name? If I was an adherent of a religion that murdered 100 – 200 million people in the last century, I would not be so quick to open my mouth and attack others.

    • Barry Evans

      Atheism isn’t a religion, anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Or staying staying at home is a journey. It’s a lack of belief in God(s) .

  • Rick VanDongen

    I wonder what would have happened if a black actor had thanked God like that?

    • zbobby5

      Thunderous applause.

  • Scotty Markfour

    what the f**k has a non existant god got to do with it ?

  • Janet

    Christian numbers are increasing not shrinking….why do you think that any movie about the bible raises more money than any other? Not shrinking…growing and starting to also stand up against people who would like to remove God from our lives….

    • davidshaw

      If you paid attention to the numbers you’d realize how incredibly wrong you are. These movies do well because people are still stupid enough to go and see them, it has nothing at all to do with numbers increasing. Pay attention to your surroundings. And your stupid fictional god has no business interfering in people’s lives, now if he were real that would be a different story. Open your mind to the world around you and you’ll see how archaic your foolish beliefs are.

  • edickins

    Matthew’s speech honoring God was the best — and next to him was Jared Leto’s speech honoring his mother.

  • Loren Jon

    The thing that makes this unkind is that they applaud anything and anyone except anything that sounds Christian. If you’re gonna’ applaud one, then applaud for each and every one no matter what it is or don’t applaud any. If he had thanked Jesus, the room would have been even colder. Why? Because even though they say we shouldn’t paint with broad brushes and also say we should all be tolerant and respectful of everyone, they don’t really mean what they say.

  • Halothane

    Anyone can thank whoever they want.

    I’m not insulted if someone thanks Allah, Mohammed, Jesus, all or one of the the saints, god, yahweh, Jehovah, Buddha, Ahura Mazda, the pantheon of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and Asian gods (I apologize for leaving out any one else’s fairy tales).

    What is concerning is when the religious are upset, shocked, insulted by the tepid reaction such a thanking gets. Imagine if he was booed?

    Why should anyone get a standing ovation (outside of giving such thanks in a temple) or a strong round of applause for thanking a supposed omnipotent being that created everything?

    • Recon5

      I’m glad you’re not offended, but suffering silently amongst the lesser men not endowed with the great big brains you were that better enable your enlightened and condescending patronage.

      Thank you. Thank you so much.

      • Halothane

        “Wow! Someone’s been to finishing school!” A Woody Allen quote for you.

        I will not suffer silently as so many atheists have had to in the past.

        I don’t have a bigger brain, just a more analytic one, perhaps, than most.

        My patronage is not necessarily condescending. Religion is not on equal footing with science. It is, however, on equal footing with astrology, alchemy, and phrenology. Perhaps believers in those myths can be condescending towards religion, but atheists just shake their heads in the power of delusion. After all, we submit to the collective delusion of time changing twice a year too.

        • Recon5

          “I will not suffer silently”, lol?

          Poor baby. Oppressed as a child, were you?

          I’ve got a little bulletin for you, btw. Science isn’t on the same level as it’s PR office claims it is either.

          After all, AGW.

          • Halothane

            What’s wrong? Can’t admit to the religious oppression of the past few millenia? You have issues with denial?

            Science may not be on the same level as its PR department claims (whatever that may be), but it’s certainly head and shoulders above religion.

            AGW? Anti Global Warming?

          • Recon5

            Oh sure, I’ll cop to religious oppression, particularly via power hungry nominally “religious”, but largely secular statists.

            But you’ve never
            experienced it.

          • jaydee007

            All he is, is Ridicule – he has no Scientific Knowledge (see my discussion with him below) and therefore cannot refute what I have said, only ridicule it.

          • Halothane

            Ridicule is appropriate when there is no rationality on the other side.

            Your mDNA argument? I tried to address it.

            If I’m ridicule, you are ignorant.

          • jaydee007

            And your Day argument was nothing but Ridicule, but then it was from you total ignorance of the nature of languages…

            The Hebrew word Yom, while containing the same meaning as the English word day (that is a 24 hour period, or a period when sunlight is present) it also is used to represent a Period of time that can be as long as eons.
            So when you argue that the English Translation either MUST be taken literally, or anyone who does not take it literally is torturing the language, you show your own Ignorance, and twisting things to meet your own ends.

          • Halothane

            Day, time period, eon, yom, which is it?

            Which bible should we turn to? Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? Armenian? German? Russian? With each translation comes an interpretation.

            Why would a god send his message in such a confusing and inefficient manner? Ridiculous.

          • jaydee007

            By sending the message in different languages, Hebrew the old testament, and Greek the new testament, it creates a context where one is better able to understand, because the differences allow for a ‘stereo’ view if you will as to the meaning.

          • Halothane

            You obviously know how to rationalize everything away.

            I must say, I’ve never heard of this “stereoscopic” view and the multiple translations theory.

            How can this be true? It would imply that readers of the bible know both languages so that they can compare the nuances of the meaning of the words.

            No. Each translation was done to spread the delusion to as many people willing to swallow it as possible.

            This is exactly the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that I refer to when I see religious people using the bible as some sort of textbook from god. Again, simply ridiculous.

          • jaydee007

            Again, no refutation and No evidence – just Ridicule.

            And I’m still hearing Crickets as to where the bible says that our common ancestors were NOT separated by years…

            Because to anyone who reads the account of Genesis it makes Perfect Sense.

          • Halothane

            You’re hearing crickets because they evolved to chirp so they can attract mates, so that they can procreate and pass on their DNA.

            What on earth am I supposed to provide evidence for? Your theory about stereoscopic views on the interpretation of the bible as a reason to why there are so many translations?

            How about you answer why an all knowing god would let his followers be so confused as to what and how to worship him?

            To anyone who reads the bible looking for answers, they will find them. Just like we can find patterns in Rorschach diagrams. It’s what our brains do.

            There is nothing really to refute. The bible is a bunch of stories written by middle eastern men. That’s pretty simple. You want to say it’s the word of a spirit or god, feel free, but don’t put that $hit out there as fact.

          • jaydee007

            Well, since I’m not a Paid Troll, you now have 8 hours to figure out how to Refute the fact that the evidence I provided does not make sense in biblical context of the book of genesis and in the context of the Science presented.
            You are just so scatterbrained in you ridicule that you appear to have confused yourself.

          • Halothane

            How are you so sure of that? I have: Islamic versus my Christian grandparents, which is the beginning of the story of how I was born in the U.S.

            However, what does it matter that I have never personally experienced it?

            It’s happening in my country when I see bills passed to teach creationism. When people insist on placing menorah’s or manger scenes in public or government buildings. It happens when public business owners refuse to serve clients based on their race, religion (or lack thereof), creed, and sexual orientation.

          • robert anthony

            So sorry to hear you were ‘oppressed’ at the sight of a Christmas creche…that little baby must be frightening! Hahahaha!!!

          • Halothane

            You are droll! I don’t care to see any advertisements on public grounds for any religion. Any religion.

            You want a manger scene or a recreation of Bethlehem around the time of the birth of someone, go right ahead. Light it up with 10,000 watts of glorious light.
            You want a menorah that extends to your roof? With spotlights spewing lumens out toward space? Go for it.

            Don’t push that $hit via the government that is supposed to be impartial.

          • robert anthony

            “Don’t push that $hit via the government that is supposed to be impartial.” – Right,just let atheists use government to push their secular view of the world. I’ll remember that next time a War Memorial is taken down through appeal in the courts or my tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood. I understand…that mythical, non-existent ‘idol’ is just SOOO intolerably offensive to people who don’t believe in him. I’m afraid of the tooth-fairy too.

          • Halothane

            The secular view is not being pushed. It should be the default view, not religion.

            You just won’t understand.

          • robert anthony

            The secular view IS being pushed, it is ITSELF a religion…and why should it be the ‘default’ view? Because you say so? Now you’re pushing a belief system on others.

          • Halothane

            Perhaps an ideology, but not a religion.

            Basically, it’s the next step in the evolution of religion, from fire-worship to shamanism, polytheism to monotheism, from agnosticism to atheism.

            If, after all that, the concept of a god becomes proven, then that will depose atheism for theism.

          • robert anthony

            Whatever helps you sleep at night, pal. Then try to avoid seeing the ‘Earth Day celebrations’, ‘Giant Vagina costumes’. Sand paens to Obama’, and whatever other forms of worship the left is currently engaged in. LOL!!!

          • jaydee007

            “…that mythical, non-existent ‘idol’ is just SOOO intolerably offensive to people who don’t believe in him.”
            I’m going to halt you right there.
            while these people CLAIM to be Atheist, I submit to you that they are, in fact, NOT Atheist.
            To be Atheist you must Disbelieve the Existence of a Creator God.
            But when you listen to these folks long enough they reveal themselves. They don NOT Disbelieve God, they HATE God.
            And, since it is Impossible to Hate that which you do not believe to exist, they must believe in the Existence of a creator God, and, they Hate Him.
            Therefore, they are really, Antitheist, not Atheist.

          • robert anthony

            Well-stated, my friend.

    • robert anthony

      You atheists keep using the same words….’upset, shocked, insulted, persecuted’….yet nobody is saying these things except you…note the headline… ‘sad’…note the Twitter phrases…I see no outrage or insult, merely people taking note of the ‘cool reception’ it got. It’s hilarious all the faux ‘outrage’ etc., you atheists here have manufactured on the spot. I’d say that’s pretty ‘sad’ but then you’d probably claimed I shrieked and came at you with a knife.LOL!

      • Halothane

        The outrage is directed at the audacity the religious have at expecting others to believe in their religion and not at the Oscar speech mention of thanks to a god.

        • robert anthony

          “..the audacity the religious have at expecting others to believe in their religion. ” – Again, nobody saying that either. Simply being noted…noted how uncomfortable a being who doesn’t exist seems to make people who don’t believe in him.

          • Halothane

            With respect to Matthew, no. He just thanked a god. I’m referring to the general attitude among religious people of the world. Christians and Muslims come to mind immediately.

          • robert anthony

            Notice the only place muslims, Christians, gays, and atheists are being killed is in muslim countries. To put Christians on the level of muslims is to put Ronald McDonald in the same category as John Wayne Gacey.

  • Sam Pickell

    I am surprised they let him live! I’ll bet they will not be giving the “Magic Mike Star” a MICHROPHONE any time soon.

  • Sam Pickell

    His genius somehow left the building that night after his “blasphemous” anti secularist speech. I wonder if he is a fiscal conservative? I know he has got to be a social liberal or not.

  • http://steamcommunity.com/id/pwag42 Swagner

    “good, intelligent, peace-loving people”, defined as “those who shout obscenities at those they disagree with”

  • Gavin Ray

    I don’t really see the point. Are we trying to manufacture outrage? I mean, should they pretend to be excited or proud of his faith if they’re not? The most talented and successful people in the top of most fields are statistically more likely to have no religion or be atheist, this is normal

  • Barry Evans

    Sorry, starving, impoverished, sick kids of the world, God was too busy getting Matthew McConaughey his Oscar to help you.

    • Bill

      I thought he was waiting for the Facebook post to get 100,000 likes so the doctor can cure that poor girl’s cancer.

  • Simon Shaw

    thankfully, I recorded it so I could fast forward though his bullshit

  • Akash Hirosh

    The concern and the paranoia is hilarious. You are not being persecuted people, relax.

    • robert anthony

      Nobody said we are being persecuted…did they? Nope, just making up stuff in your head. It was merely pointed out how uncomfortable atheists get when God, someone they don’t even, supposedly, believe in, is mentioned.

  • Dmitri

    Having trouble with Disqus on my mobile, just wanted to come in on Nick Peter’s burden of proof in regards to the Abrahamic God’s existence.

    The assertion that gods do not exist does not need evidence to prove why he doesn’t exist, his very existence is at fault for not containing evidence in the first place. There is no evidence that supports the Abrahamic God for existing, that is why some of us hold an atheistic view in the first place: we have no reason to believe that any gods exist at all because there is no way to determine that they exist. We cannot show any evidence to the contrary, because the evidence doesn’t exist to begin with! God doesn’t exist and I don’t have any evidence to prove this, but the burden of proof definitely lies in those that assert that he does. Faith is not proof.

    • robert anthony

      Those who believe in God feel no ‘burden’ to prove anything to you. What gave you the idea they did?

      • Dmitri

        It’s a figure of speech. It just means that if you’re saying something that is pretty far out of our understanding of the world, there should be proof in what you say. Sometimes, people will argue that because you can’t disprove God, he exists. Let’s take a look at Bertrand’s teapot:

        “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
        But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

        If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

        • robert anthony

          Spare me your nonsense…..you’re whole overly-simple example completely leaves out the fact that to a Christian, God is not an ‘all-powerful teapot’..you conveniently leave out or are ignorant of infinite examples of things that happen to people on a personal basis that strengthens their faith in a personal God. From hard times, to addictions, to families mended, to miracles, to healing…not even to count teh scriptures and the discernment to know that one is hearing truth and common-sense when one hears it..your, obvious ‘college genius’ too-smart-for-it’s-own-good teapot narrative ignores all that., Among so many other assumptions…like your ridiculous and obvious prejudicial belief that those who are Christians are solely those born and raised that way…do you realize that’s not true at all?

          • Dmitri

            Do you have a proper argument with any sort of proof to deny what I am saying? The teapot and god do not exist.

          • robert anthony

            I just did. I also just revealed what kind of assumptions and prejudices exist in your mind. It’s not MY job to give sight to the blind. Like I said, I feel no ‘burden of proof’…why should I? Why should any Christian? On the contrary, it is the beliefs and faiths of the secular left that, TOO often, are made into laws and ‘mandatory contributions’. If anyone owes people explanations…it’s the secular left, THEY should be explaining their belief system in detail…Christians have cost me NO money, nor do they attempt to extort it through taxes…abortion ‘rights’ and global warming believing leftists do, however.

          • Dmitri

            Wait, are you serious? The Christian political conglomeration have undermined equality and instead opted for allowing their own beliefs to be the “right ones”. That doesn’t even begin to make sense. Without even getting into women’s rights and the scientific proof for global warming, Christians have done more to undermine human rights and waste tax dollars than most other political figures. Please tell me you’re joking.

          • robert anthony

            “Christians have done more to undermine human rights and waste tax dollars than most other political figures.” – Examples?

          • Dmitri

            You can literally Google any examples. Not funding affordable healthcare, welfare, tax exemptions, how about you go to Google and type in “Arizona”. Just do that.

          • robert anthony

            Health insurance (especially as administered by bureacracy with a horrible track record), welfare, tax exemptions, are not a ‘right’…like to try again? Or would you like me to compose a list of every activity or thing that has been or proposed to be punitively taxed, censored, banned, prohibited, or limited by the secular left as compared to Christianity?

          • Dmitri

            Sure.

          • Joanne13

            PROVE that God doesn’t exist. I mean if you want to talk about proving things. Oh and good luck with that too.

        • juanaguilar

          Dude, I’ve been trying to explain this in more simple terms all day. All you will encounter is willful ignorance.

          • robert anthony

            The day I think your words have as much merit, truth, or sense to them as Christ’s Gospel is the day I shoot myself in the f**in head.

          • juanaguilar

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • robert anthony

            Your point? You mean you had one? Let me get this straight…recognizing a dope when I see one is an example of ‘willful ignorance’? Wow…think much of yourself do ya? Now who’s ‘willful’?

          • juanaguilar

            My point is that you are being wilfully ignorant. My proof is that two people have tried to explain their ideas to you and you insist on twisting and misrepresenting what we’re saying, and throwing jabs the whole way. But yes, I had a point, and you proved it by saying that there’s nothing I could say to sway you. That’s the definition of willful ignorance.

          • robert anthony

            There is nothing you can say to sway me…why should there be? Should faith be so weak that it would be influenced by some so-called argument from the likes of you? puh-lease. Because I don’t believe in your ‘no-god’ you call me ‘willfully ignorant’…THAT, my friend, is you actually being an example of willfully ignorant…are you that blind to think you MUST be right and so everyone else is ‘willfully ignorant’? Grow up, son.

          • juanaguilar

            So you’ve thrown out nothing but insults and deflections and I’m the one who needs to grow up? In your oh-so-mature parlance, “puh-lease.” i’m not wasting any more time on you. feel free to have the last word.

          • robert anthony

            Oh, did I insult you? Here’s your first comment to Dmitri, regarding me..”.Dude, I’ve been trying to explain this in more simple terms all day. All you will encounter is willful ignorance.”. So sorry if I insulted you after you implied I was ‘willfully ignorant’…aww, boo-hoo.

          • Dmitri

            You’re still taking it personally. The term “burden of proof” is in response to having a debate. We don’t care about your beliefs. My whole paragraph was in reference to a theological DEBATE in the comments. Debates and your own faith are two different things. Again: THIS ISNT ABOUT YOU ITS ABOUT A DEBATE.

          • robert anthony

            And I already answered you…your ‘teapot’ argument is a joke. Do you have a similar story regarding scriptures written by this teapot which feature undeniable truths and wisdom? Perhaps your teapot story would do better to as not assume merely ‘Creator’ characteristics, but those of a ‘personal teapot’ who teaches love and has been an example for change and 180 degree turns in the lives of others. Perhaps a more ‘specific’ personal covenant between teapot and man would be a more accurate example then your prejudice that Christians think of God as some mighty elephant (teapot) holding the Universe on his back.
            I don’t know when you missed the part, exactly, where I said Christians feel no need to ‘debate’ the issue or weigh the merits of atheism or provide ‘proof’ to you…why do you think we feel some need to convince you or something?…we don’t.

          • Dmitri

            If you commit suicide, you won’t have to worry about Hell since it doesn’t exist!

          • Dmitri

            It seems that for some people, it’s easier to not think about things. When I do that, I know that it’s wrong and it hurts my head. I can’t understand how some people live their lives without at least trying to understand their own existence instead of reading one book and going, “yup, that’s it.”

          • robert anthony

            Again…you reveal your prejudices…you have no idea how people become Christians,,,you have no idea their experiences, what they have ever read, their research or meditations…nothing! You are a bigoted fool…simple as that…and I needed no book to see it.

          • Dmitri

            I don’t have prejudice for anything or anybody, if anyone wants to be a Christian, that’s fine and dandy. But we are “all created equal” and have the right to believe whatever we want. If I hear somebody say that their God is the truth, I can disagree with it because I don’t believe in it and it’s not true. But I won’t create a law forcing you to never pray. That’s the difference.

          • robert anthony

            “If I hear somebody say that their God is the truth, I can disagree with it because I don’t believe in it and it’s not true.” – Sure you can…and in a largely Christian country…imagine that huh? Nobody cares if you don’t believe…not even Christians. They are not making laws to force you to or otherwise…it is BECAUSE we are largely of a Judeo-Christian background in this Nation that we hold those kinds of freedom dear..so the question begs…. why are you here? Why are you asking for ‘burden of proof’ if you are so aloof?

          • Dmitri

            First of all, this country is founded on religious FREEDOM. We are not in any sense founded on Judeo-Christianity. Read the Treaty of Tripoly. I am here because I love that my country gives me freedom. It isn’t freedom when the religious right enacts laws that undermine social justice.

          • robert anthony

            “It isn’t freedom when the religious right enacts laws that undermine social justice.” – Again…gonna need examples. You’re living in some fantasy land where you are a persecuted ‘victim’, and pretending that you live in a land of freedom and liberty precisely despite Christianity…when the opposite is true. Holy Teapot forbid you find the Country ruled and dominated exclusively by the secular left. THEN you’lll find out what loss of freedom is all about…they excel at control.

            “We are not in any sense founded on Judeo-Christianity.” – Sorry to contradict whatever false teachings you’ve received but we ARE. True tolerance and respect for liberty comes from God-fearing men. Our Constitution itself relies on trust that mankind is decent and able to govern themselves. If Christianity is/was such a threat, ask yourself…why are alchohol, pornography, freedom of sexuality, other faiths, etc., etc. all legal and open for business when they are contradictory to Christian teaching? Yet, it is secular liberals who attempt to ban 16 ounce sodas, label record albums, deem themselves ‘arbiters of rights’ like leftists, Dianne Feinstein attempting to limit freedom of the press to only those ‘officially recognized’ by the Feds as a ‘media’? Just a few examples.

          • juanaguilar

            Generally speaking, some people have a harder time separating their subjective experience with objective, testable, demonstrably true information. But really, don’t take this kid as an example, he’s either unwilling or unable to understand the concept of burden of proof, FFS.

          • robert anthony

            Maybe you should introduce yourself to the beginning of the conversation, brightness…you know,.. the part where I’m supposed to care to prove myself to ignoramuses?

          • juanaguilar

            I don’t care what you care about. Your insults are childish and only weaken your arguments. But for Nth time, burden of proof isn’t about feelings, it means that if you make a statement and want it to be considered fact, you have to offer proof.

          • Joanne13

            Really? PROVE that there is no God.

          • Dmitri

            That was the whole point of my topic! The burden of proof lies with the people that say God exists, not with the ones that say he doesn’t. We cannot prove that God doesn’t exist because there isn’t even proof that he exists in the first place! Are you serious?

          • juanaguilar

            They’re serious. Don’t lose any sleep about it, some people just can’t comprehend basic logic. Cue retort saying that statement applies to us.

          • Dmitri

            You just called it, my friend. Think I’m about done here!

          • Joanne13

            Nope, sorry. If you want to state your belief then you must prove it. It’s not a one way street even though you wish so badly it was.

          • Dmitri

            See, that isn’t the problem. The problem is that there is literally no proof that God exists. If there is no proof that he DOES exist, why would there be proof that he doesn’t exist? That doesn’t make sense.

          • Halothane

            You are definitely sorry.
            If you want to impose your beliefs on others, or base a whole political party on a religious edifice, YOU have to prove that your deity exists.

          • robert anthony

            “If you want to impose your beliefs on others, our base a whole political party on a religious edifice..” – You guys keep saying stuff like that…yet you can’t even offer proof of that. I want to see some ‘burden of proof’…where are Christians beliefs being forced upon you? Examples.

          • Halothane

            Again, you must be joking. The Republican party is basically the moral majority of the Reagan years. The Republican party feeds off of the voters’ religious passions.

            They try and manipulate laws to fit their vision of how they think the government should run, in accordance with scripture.

            You have members of congress constantly, monthly, spouting out unsubstantiated claims regarding pregnancy, abortion, contraception, human sexuality, bigotry, all in the name of constituents who’s beliefs are based on “the bible”.

            The burden of proof literally is the burden of the religious on non-believers.

          • robert anthony

            “..unsubstantiated claims regarding pregnancy, abortion, contraception, human sexuality, bigotry, all in the name of constituents who’s beliefs are based on “the bible”.” – Yet no examples still? Here, I’ll help you out with one easy example…it is a violation of VARIOUS faiths to use their money for abortion practices they find offensive and contrary to their beliefs about life. The Christian position on abortion is NOT a ‘forcing of beliefs on others’ or ‘religious vision of running government’. On the contrary, it is a defense of a right and is an opposition to a secular government/left’s action actually forcing IT’s beliefs on everyone..the idea that we ALL should fund abortions. Get it right…you got it backwards.

          • Halothane

            The violation of a faith that is based not on fact but on hearsay and delusion, is not really a violation, is it?

            The orthodox J-C-M view of abortion is a forcing of ideology on the populous. For example, if I live near a Catholic hospital and I am in need of a life-threatening, emergency abortion on a 28 week old fetus, and I cannot get that care, but rather I will be kept alive even if unconscious, so that the baby can be born, I would say that this is a forcing of ideology.

            I should be given a choice. Perhaps I am wiling to sacrifice my life for my unborn child. Perhaps, I can convince my spouse to allow me to pass so that my child can live. However, in this day and age of SCIENCE, where I can choose to live, abort my fetus, then conceive again, why would I choose death?

          • robert anthony

            Nice strawman…yeah, let’s all pretend abortion is all about mothers dying or at risk of dying in child-birth. And you say god is ‘made-up’.

            “The violation of a faith that is based not on fact but on hearsay and delusion, is not really a violation, is it?” – Oh, you rewriting Constitutional rights now? It’s okay to violate one’s faith based on your opinion of it? Wow, doesn’t take long for the petty fascist inside every leftists to rear it’s ugly head.

          • Halothane

            bye…

          • robert anthony

            You’re leaving? But…but…I wanted to discuss ‘science and reason’ using ‘brilliant’ quotes from the secular left. Like PP’s Cecile Richards’ recent explanation that the vagina is some ‘magical portal’ from which emerges a human being who was merely ‘bacteria’ moments before on the other side. Or some quotes ‘proving’ global warming’ from the left. Aw well, seems, based on your opinion, if I don’t buy into your beliefs you have no rights I can’t violate anyway, ain’t that right, Mr. ‘Reason’? So maybe it’s better you go…

          • robert anthony

            Now…how about some real examples, rather than your fantasy ones? Or is it that ‘oppression’ of the horrors of Christmas!?! Oh my!

            There’s a new reality show on MTV following a female teen who’s had two abortions…guess what? She’s pregnant again…not ONCE was it a case of her life being in jeopardy. Sorry, epic fail…try again.

          • jaydee007

            Drop down the list and see where I own him on the issue of Mitochondrial DNA and the Science that shows we have a Single Common Ancestral Pair.
            He’s full of Ridicule and Short on Understanding of Science and or Facts.

          • jaydee007

            “For example, if I live near a Catholic hospital and I am in need of a life-threatening, emergency abortion on a 28 week old fetus”
            There has NEVER been such an emergency in the history of the world – Period.
            You really are full of yourself, aren’t you?

          • juanaguilar

            Look, I’ve explained this ad nauseum in numerous posts, click my name to see my response to your challenge. But let me take a different tack for a moment: as a faithful Christian, isn’t it your responsibility to try to save my soul? Well, I need some proof God exists. If you have some and are unwilling to provide it, then you are not being faithful to God’s plan for you. So do you love your God enough to try to prove his existence?

          • Joanne13

            Here’s one for you: Psalm 14:1a (AMP) 1 The [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God.

            There would be no reason for me to try and convince you of the existence of God nor of your need for salvation. You’ve already convinced yourself that He doesn’t exist. You’ve made your choice. Bet you’ve made choices over your life that turned out to be the wrong. This would be one of those times. Rather than try and convert you myself I’d simply suggest you search out the truth for yourself. It’s there but will mean you need to get out of that prejudiced straightjacket you’ve willfully put yourself in.

            IF you are the true ‘intellectual’ you fancy yourself to be then you’ll take my suggestion and run with it. Of course you may not be as open-minded as you think you are in which case you’ll continue on looking for someone to prod. Lucky for you I have a life and no more time for your childish debate. I DO hope you get out of yourself and consider the alternative… that He DOES exist. When you find that truth you’ll be coming closer to true enlightenment.

          • juanaguilar

            So you didn’t even try to save me, you threw out some insults, and you wrote off my soul as a lost cause and a waste of your time. Is this what God would want? Well, let’s check some more scripture:

            “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:50

            “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.” Colossians 4:5

            “Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” John 4:34

            So… did you do that? In your heart of hearts, is God really satisfied with the effort you put forth?

          • robert anthony

            wow…you’re just not that bright , are you?

            “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:50 – It is not God’s will for any of us to cast pearls at swine. (another scripture).

            “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.” – Joanne is being wise in her actions…she’s not wasting time with you, but is using an opportunity. She’s teaching you and you don’t even know it (or refuse to listen more likely).

            “Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” – “Jesus said”…first of all, we are not Jesus, his mission was different…secondly, you make a pretty fallacious assumption there that the will of God and ‘his work’ is for Joanne to waste her time with you. I think not.

            There is no ‘effort’ beholden on Joanne or me to teach you, minister to you or otherwise, argue with you. You make a huge mistake assuming ‘God’s will’ is for people to argue with fools. You guys are really so ignorant of Christianity that you make this too easy.

          • robert anthony

            “..as a faithful Christian, isn’t it your responsibility to try to save my soul?” – No, it is not. I can show you examples from Scripture if you like…to spread the news to those who would listen yes…to those who won’t, no, Christians have no responsibility to them. To defend the weak, we do…to argue with brick-walls, we don’t. Christ, himself, sent his apostles out telling them, basically, if a door is slammed in your face, move on. God saves people, not us…if he chooses to ‘save your soul’, you’ll know it.

          • Halothane

            But they don’t move on, do they? They keep going, from one person to another, spreading this meme that is able to entice humans like a virus.

            And I do not want to single out Christians. I believe all religions, all of them, are really detrimental. All of them. Not just Christianity.

            Thought experiment: If every and all traces were wiped from this planet, from our minds, religion, I believe, would return.

            However, any new religions would NOT resemble any of the religions that exist in their habits and aspects as they do today.

            Would a monotheistic religion eventually arise? I think so. It’s still part of our nature to look up and wonder. But if science was there first, like it was with the ancient Greeks, who dreamt of the atomic theory (Demosthenes), who dabbled in geometry and trigonometry, then religion would have no more standing in our culture than astrology, alchemy, or phrenology.

            Evolution, however, always seems to start with the simple explanations first, then adds and modifies as the questions get more complicated. Hence, religion began as an explanation to our circumstances, our trials and tribulations, and its usefulness is waning.

          • juanaguilar

            I asked for proof of God’s existence numerous times, and I’m still listening, but you not only don’t provide it, you categorically refuse to. I’m not being a brick wall, you are. Just state your proof. What could be easier?

          • robert anthony

            Prove that he doesn’t.

            Listen, actually, I COULD get into this argument…but it takes a lot more than a couple hundred characters inside a ‘disqus’ box. Secondly..learn the definition of ‘categorically refuse’..it’s not the same as saying ‘I owe none of you an explanation’. What I find interesting is how a little article on God draws people, who don’t believe, like you, out…I don’t spend this much time going to argue about the toothfairy. I find that interesting.

          • Halothane

            You just don’t get it, do you? The burden of proof is on the believers, on the faithful, on those that follow without needing to know.

          • robert anthony

            You’re prejudiced out of sheer ignorance. The proof of that is your typical ‘believing’ that people just ‘follow’ without question. A preposterous, unthinking and biased view. Those who believe believe because they HAVE proof, because they have experience and knowledge…not in spite of any. There is no ‘burden of proof’ on believers…did you just make that up?

          • Halothane

            Experience and knowledge in what, do tell?

            I did not just make that up. If you want to convince me that there is a god, that the bible is the “go-to” text when trying to decide policy, or law, or almost anything, then you had better damn well prove to me that this god exists and that the bible is some sort of textbook for that religion.

            Along the way you will have to discuss the myriad of other religions, the religions that went extinct, the miracles, the hallucinations, the interpretations, the translations, and yes, the evolution of religion, from fire worship, to shamanism, to polytheism, dualism, monotheism, buddhism, hinduism, and whatever other fairy tail you want to include.

          • robert anthony

            “If you want to convince me that there is a god,…” – This makes, now, three of you who seem to have a problem understanding me…I don’t WANT to convince you there is a god, I don’t CARE if you don’t believe…YOU are the ones who felt the need to be here for hours on end and tell US what you think. LOL!! How pathetic…why ARE you here?

          • Halothane

            If you do not want to convince me that there is a god, then why are you concerned with the tepid reaction of an audience when a speaker acknowledged their belief in such a god?

          • robert anthony

            Hmmm….let’s see….interesting to note the uncomfortable, mute response the mention of God gets in Hollywood = desiring to prove to halothane that there is a God. Yeah, thank God you’re not religious, it might make you illogical or somethin’. LOL!

          • Halothane

            You asked why I’m here. I answered.

            You don’t have to prove there is a god to Me. I already know that there most likely isn’t, can’t say for 100%, but for all intents and purposes, it has yet to be proven.

            Would I bet my life on it? Yes. I put up $10, and if there is no god I get $1,000,000,000,000.00. If there is, I die.

            I’m pretty much done here.

          • Dmitri

            That is in terms of a debate. You don’t have to prove anything in the real world. If you’re debating! Like Nick Peters!!! Who I mentioned!!! Then you must give proof. I don’t care about your beliefs.

        • Joanne13

          If you choose to disbelieve in God (ABRAHAM’S God as you so quizzically point out) that’s your choice. You see no ‘proof’ but I see much proof. Your opinion is based on your feelings and the writings of others like yourself who choose to disbelieve. My ability TO believe doesn’t simply come from written scripture but upon ACTUAL experience(s) with God. If I chose to share these experiences with you I imagine you’d still need to deny God’s existence. But that’s your loss and has no bearing on the very real experience(s) I’ve had and that your lack of belief prevents you from even considering.

          So continue on with your crusade to deny God’s existence. But here’s a news flash for you… God isn’t impressed with your opinion and He certainly ISN’T moved by your lack of faith.

          • Dmitri

            If you choose to disbelieve in Zeus (GREECE’S Zeus as you so quizzically point out) that’s your choice. You see no ‘proof’ but I see much proof. Your opinion is based on your feelings and the writings of others like yourself who choose to disbelieve. My ability TO believe doesn’t simply come from written scripture but upon ACTUAL experience(s) with Zeus. If I chose to share these experiences with you I imagine you’d still need to deny Zeus’s existence. But that’s your loss and has no bearing on the very real experience(s) I’ve had and that your lack of belief prevents you from even considering.

            So continue on with your crusade to deny Zeus’s existence. But here’s a news flash for you… Zeus isn’t impressed with your opinion and He certainly ISN’T moved by your lack of faith.

          • Joanne13

            Is THAT all you’ve got? What a child.

          • Dmitri

            Why is what I said childish? Is it childish to believe in Zeus? That’s an incredibly rude assumption to make. I never meant to offend you in your belief in your god, why would you call my belief childish?

          • Halothane

            It’s no more or less than what you’ve got.

          • robert anthony

            False…spoken like someone who can’t tell the difference between the written word of Gospel (or never opened one) and a number of stories which feature no teachings, no guidance from Zeus. What is Zeus’ take on charity or forgiveness? I must have missed his scriptures.

          • Halothane

            I have to take a deep breath.

            Most of Zeus’ scriptures, and the scriptures of the Greek pantheon, have been destroyed by Christians. You are talking about a society that basically created philosophy and used the gods as filler material (on some level, I’m sure there were people that took the stories literally).

            You do not need, I will say it again, you do not need the bible, or any religion for that matter, to develop a sense of morality.

          • robert anthony

            Now you’re just being ridiculous…you can’t share your experiences with Zeus because you have none. On the contrary, many Christians have personal, reinforcing, and undeniable experiences with God and his Word. Many of these experiences completely in-line, non-coincidentally, with his Word. Maybe you love Zeus because you have a feeling…but Christ didn’t teach us to rely on ‘feelings’ but on the truth and his word. In fact, Christians know that ‘feelings’ can be misleading…that’s just another part of acting on faith you wouldn’t understand. There is a Gospel….where is the ‘word’ of Zeus?

        • Halothane

          Thank you Mr. Russell!

  • Andrew Curlutu

    Quite frankly, the bottom line is that this country practices freedom OF religion, not FROM. People should recognize that meddling with that is to their peril, for if Christians, Hindus, Muslims, what have you, are outlawed, what makes you think YOUR interest group(s) you support won’t be next? It appears people are basically selfish, they only care about things that actively affect them at any given time. This is NOT a good thing.

    • Tex Dyess

      Agreed!

  • riverbaby

    Amoral crowd, moral McConaughey!

  • Bo_Rebel

    “Thank you God for giving me this award above all these other candidates. Thank you for not chosen them!! AMEN!!”

  • Saltporkdoc

    Result of Matthew McConaughey’s acceptance speech: Before, I thought he was a good actor. After, I think he is a good actor …and a great MAN! I will go see most anything with him in it from now on!

  • Darin Sunny McCullough

    Luke 16:15 “…that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”

    If all the “atheists” would simply drop it, it really would give much, much less proof that scripture IS absolutely true. Don’t you realize that by attacking God and His Word, you are fulfilling EVERY SINGLE THING IT SAID WOULD COME TO PASS? Now, I can IMAGINE that your very predictable argument will be, “If only the Christians will shut up and go away…if only the Christians will stop trying to control my life…if only the Christians….” but really, can you give ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where Christians are trying to run anyone’s life? And do SO WITHOUT bringing up homosexuals or abortion, please. Amazingly, it is ONLY the Christians being attacked, yet, Christians are not trying to create a Sharia USA…which, by the way, is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more “controlling” than anything Christians would seek to do.

  • dinkerduo

    That will probably be Mathews LAST Oscar–from now on he won’t even be nominated!! Didn’t watch–haven’t in years–but that response was so typical of the liberal commie bunch of do nothings was pitiful even for them! I saw it later on the news–and yes–it’s sad that in this Jewdao Christian country that the mention of God is so coldly received!! But then they didn’t want to offend the Muslim in the WH!!!!

  • Joseph A. Zuchowski

    So,he thanked god and hardly anyone clapped how about that,
    BFD.

  • Li Es

    Religion:

    The belief that the entire universe was intelligently created by a god solely

    for the purpose of one planet and his own amusement, and that this one planet

    needs to find him through the distribution of a book.

  • Evelyn Glover

    Crap quit living in the Old Testament. Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the 3rd day. We now live under His Grace in the New Testament. You are not required to do those things in the OT as that book was written for the Jews. We learn from the law but we are not under it. If yuou read the OT at all you will see where our world is just like theirs was at that time. They disobeyed God just as we do today. You may not know it now but one day you may call on God for any number of reasons, a sick child, a job desperately needed, etc. And remember what I told you here, one day all knees will bow before God and in that moment you will be sorry you denied Him.

  • FeralFemale

    McConaughey and Leto gave the best speeches of the night if for no other reason than it wasn’t an endless list of names that no one knows or cares about. I preferred hearing about a story or a life philosophy than someone thanking 100 people and their agent or lawyer.

  • Bill

    Won’t have to worry about sharing Heaven with many from there.

  • Nick P666

    Well at least he can PLAY an interesting atheist on the brink of a major career shift… Yes, Matthew…God helped you win the little golden statue which signifies victory and honor and OH WAIT—
    “‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God…”

    K then.