Comments on: The Gospel of Elvis http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:11:58 +0000 By: Valhar2000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34627 Valhar2000 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:16:05 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34627 Goyo: fundies think that God is real, Jesus is real, and everybody knows this, as though that knowledge were built into the laws of the universe. Therefore, atheists and other infidels are merely denying this knowledge for deleterious reasons of their won. Thus, the presence of Jesus in the real world would do nothing to change their minds (except maybe scare them a little). They really do beleive this. Have you never heard a fundie saying that atheists are angry at god and that no amount of evidence of god could convince us? The mean it! Goyo: fundies think that God is real, Jesus is real, and everybody knows this, as though that knowledge were built into the laws of the universe. Therefore, atheists and other infidels are merely denying this knowledge for deleterious reasons of their won. Thus, the presence of Jesus in the real world would do nothing to change their minds (except maybe scare them a little).

They really do beleive this. Have you never heard a fundie saying that atheists are angry at god and that no amount of evidence of god could convince us? The mean it!

]]> By: 2-D Man http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34554 2-D Man Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:25:34 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34554 <blockquote>[J]esus will physically return to earth and rule as a king for a thousand years.</blockquote> Weren't the dark ages a thousand years, roughly? I'm not saying that this is solid evidence, but it's something to look into.

[J]esus will physically return to earth and rule as a king for a thousand years.

Weren't the dark ages a thousand years, roughly? I'm not saying that this is solid evidence, but it's something to look into.

]]> By: goyo http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34552 goyo Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:56:49 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34552 The pre-tribulation dispensationalist theory says that after the "rapture", jesus will physically return to earth and rule as a king for a thousand years. Then, there will be unbelievers that he will judge, in a second judgement. Unbelievers who have lived with jesus physically? This is a crazy theory, but one that goes right along with the above. How could you deny or rebel against a physical manifestation of god on earth? Apparently, god isn't that powerful or influential. The pre-tribulation dispensationalist theory says that after the "rapture", jesus will physically return to earth and rule as a king for a thousand years. Then, there will be unbelievers that he will judge, in a second judgement.
Unbelievers who have lived with jesus physically?
This is a crazy theory, but one that goes right along with the above. How could you deny or rebel against a physical manifestation of god on earth? Apparently, god isn't that powerful or influential.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34496 Stephen Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:42:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34496 <blockquote>If God were to appear now, we'd have a bunch of religious people ecstatically happy, a bunch of religious people unhappy that the wrong sort of God came down, a bunch of religious people who refuse to believe it ... </blockquote> No, actually I think we'd have a whole bunch of people from wildly different religious backgrounds all claiming that this was <i>of course</i> the god they'd always believed in and how could anyone doubt it. I do wonder what they'd say if Loki, Bacchus and Aphrodite showed up, though.

If God were to appear now, we'd have a bunch of religious people ecstatically happy, a bunch of religious people unhappy that the wrong sort of God came down, a bunch of religious people who refuse to believe it ...

No, actually I think we'd have a whole bunch of people from wildly different religious backgrounds all claiming that this was of course the god they'd always believed in and how could anyone doubt it.

I do wonder what they'd say if Loki, Bacchus and Aphrodite showed up, though.

]]> By: 2-D Man http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34476 2-D Man Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:14:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34476 <blockquote>Not only that, but Jesus must have utterly dissed Thomas's "free will"</blockquote> Ha ha ha. <blockquote>Ah, but fire from palms is a sorceror spell. A God that can do both divine and arcane power is versitile and impressive. It would be an out of the box thinker kind of God- or a pyro God. Hey, everyone has their flaws. </blockquote> I'm sure a clever cleric could make Sunscorch look like Burning Hands. Actually on the topic of God's (lack of) presence then and now, Netwriter has a video on YouTube called, "Is God a liar?"

Not only that, but Jesus must have utterly dissed Thomas's "free will"

Ha ha ha.

Ah, but fire from palms is a sorceror spell. A God that can do both divine and arcane power is versitile and impressive. It would be an out of the box thinker kind of God- or a pyro God. Hey, everyone has their flaws.

I'm sure a clever cleric could make Sunscorch look like Burning Hands.

Actually on the topic of God's (lack of) presence then and now, Netwriter has a video on YouTube called, "Is God a liar?"

]]> By: Valhar2000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34440 Valhar2000 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:55:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34440 Greta Christina wrote: <blockquote>According to the Bible? Yeah, that's an objective source. And an accurate one, too. Sheesh.</blockquote> Indeed, it is amazing how steadfastly beleivers refuse to understand this point. In pretty much every occasion I have seen it being brought up, the beleiver questined simply ignored it after a short declaration that the Bible just <i>is</i> true, and then gave a long diatribe to sidetrack the discussion. So, get it into your head, Christians! The Bible is only evidence of anything if you start by assuming it is true! If you read it without making this assumption you can see that it is obviously untrue and written by ancient, ignorant people. Greta Christina wrote:

According to the Bible? Yeah, that's an objective source. And an accurate one, too. Sheesh.

Indeed, it is amazing how steadfastly beleivers refuse to understand this point. In pretty much every occasion I have seen it being brought up, the beleiver questined simply ignored it after a short declaration that the Bible just is true, and then gave a long diatribe to sidetrack the discussion.

So, get it into your head, Christians! The Bible is only evidence of anything if you start by assuming it is true! If you read it without making this assumption you can see that it is obviously untrue and written by ancient, ignorant people.

]]> By: terrence http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34431 terrence Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:58:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34431 Not only that, but Jesus must have utterly dissed Thomas's "free will" Not only that, but Jesus must have utterly dissed Thomas's "free will"

]]> By: exrelayman http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34428 exrelayman Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:12:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34428 Tommy: Elvis "covered" Blue Suede Shoes, which was a Carl Perkins song. He also covered Polk Salad Annie by Tony Joe White. I loved Elvis before they drafted him, but after that he declined quite a bit (this is just one opinion - opinions are like noses). A few points more pertinent to the idea of the cited debate. If only prayers by believers on behalf of the sick were consistently effective (as scripturally promised), people would go to churches instead of doctors. This witness, though no one could see the hidden God, would certainly suffice to change my skepticism, and I venture to say, the skepticism of many others. If there be a God, why does He make this scriptural promise and not fulfill it? You say God doesn't want robots, and being less hidden would interfere with the oh so precious free will? The (according to the fairy tale) free wills of Satan and Adam were not impaired by being in God's presence that they became robots unable to sin. So why would our free wills be impaired? Also, notably, God didn't care much about Pharaoh's (notice, no specific Pharaoh) free will when He wanted to kill all the firstborn to redound to His gory glory. Tommy: Elvis "covered" Blue Suede Shoes, which was a Carl Perkins song. He also covered Polk Salad Annie by Tony Joe White. I loved Elvis before they drafted him, but after that he declined quite a bit (this is just one opinion - opinions are like noses).

A few points more pertinent to the idea of the cited debate. If only prayers by believers on behalf of the sick were consistently effective (as scripturally promised), people would go to churches instead of doctors. This witness, though no one could see the hidden God, would certainly suffice to change my skepticism, and I venture to say, the skepticism of many others. If there be a God, why does He make this scriptural promise and not fulfill it?

You say God doesn't want robots, and being less hidden would interfere with the oh so precious free will? The (according to the fairy tale) free wills of Satan and Adam were not impaired by being in God's presence that they became robots unable to sin. So why would our free wills be impaired? Also, notably, God didn't care much about Pharaoh's (notice, no specific Pharaoh) free will when He wanted to kill all the firstborn to redound to His gory glory.

]]> By: Greta Christina http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34427 Greta Christina Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:56:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34427 Yup. And for some reason, I feel the uncontrollable compulsion to point out the obvious: Basing your argument on the historical infallibility of the Bible is a fool's errand. If his entire argument is, "Why should God reveal himself clearly? He did so in the Old Testament days, and lots of people still didn't believe him!", the obvious reply is, "According to who?" According to the Bible? Yeah, that's an objective source. And an <a HREF="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/" rel="nofollow">accurate one</A>, too. Sheesh. Yup.

And for some reason, I feel the uncontrollable compulsion to point out the obvious: Basing your argument on the historical infallibility of the Bible is a fool's errand. If his entire argument is, "Why should God reveal himself clearly? He did so in the Old Testament days, and lots of people still didn't believe him!", the obvious reply is, "According to who?"

According to the Bible? Yeah, that's an objective source. And an accurate one, too. Sheesh.

]]> By: mikespeir http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34423 mikespeir Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:10:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/04/the-gospel-of-elvis.html#comment-34423 Another example of heads-I-win, tails-you-lose apologetics. If God were obvious, of course that would be evidence for God. But God is anything but obvious; so that's...well, proof of God. Another example of heads-I-win, tails-you-lose apologetics. If God were obvious, of course that would be evidence for God. But God is anything but obvious; so that's...well, proof of God.

]]>