One of the annoying things about x-ianity is the fact that they can't see it's all a setup. Supposedly goddy-poo hates sin, and wants to burn you for it. Yet he created sin, given that he created everything.

So every discussion about sin devolves into free will and the "robots" gag comes up, i.e. without the free will to commit sin you are robots.

The countercharge is that x-ians then squander their free will by deliberately turning themselves into the same robots.

Consider three mechanical men that we will call Larry, Curly, and Moe (much more fun than Units 1, 2, and 3).

These are asimovian style robots, capable of totally independent thought, just like the human mind. The Three Laws of Robotics are missing, so from the factory, there is absolutely no restriction on their behavior. However, they have an external remote control link that can be activated to override the positronic brain so that the robot can be controlled externally. This command link can be forced by the customer, or it can be activated by the robot itself.

Unit 1, Moe, is under the control of his command link, which was activated by the customer. He still has free will for the most part, except that he is required to do certain things and prohibited from doing others. If there is a conflict, the external commands have priority. Moe is not able to turn off the command link, since he didn't initiate it. Moe is the type of robot that x-ians talk about.

Unit 2, Larry, turned on his own command link for some reason. So he follows the same commands as Moe. Since he turned on the link, he can turn it off and return to independent operation. Yet he doesn't. Sometimes the command link goes down from a hardware fault and Larry does things that he ordinarily wouldn't, things not allowed by the command link. He expresses regret (repents) and turns the link back on. Larry corresponds to a x-ian.

Unit 3, Curly, has total freedom of behavior. He monitors the command link that Larry is using and sees that some of the commands make sense and others are totally bogus, commands issued just for the sake of commanding. He willingly follows the former and ignores the latter, not seeing a point in them, no goal that is being accomplished. Curly corresponds to a non-believer.

The three robots go about their work.

At one point, the vice president of the company comes in to review the operation of the shop floor. He observes the robots for a while.

"You know, we really ought to mark these robots with identification. They are all identical. I can pick out Curly because he has a wider range of behavior, but I can't tell Larry from Moe. Which is which? They behave exactly alike."

I got the following in a thread over on a x-ian forum: "Most people who think God is unfair have a better way in mind. If you were God, what better way would you deal with disobedient children?"

Oh, now we're going to think about the way god should be rather than the way x-ians say he is?

I would do away with the concept of "disobedient children" completely. In fact, I would scrap the entire biblegod concept and start from scratch.

If I was Rabbitgod, creator of the Rabbitverse and Rabbitworld:

1. sickness, disease, natural disasters, pain and suffering would be impossible. Death would always be painless and quick. No one would have to deal with old age. Their bodies would not age, staying the same until age 100, then they would fall over dead.

2. I would make "sin" impossible as well, or at least a subset of it. People would not be able to harm each other in any way. However, any action that does not cause harm, such as unlimited sex, would not be prohibited. (Note: diseases, including STDs, would not exist. Pregnancy would occur only if desired.) The inability to harm others would be wired into their brains, a modified version of Asimov's First Law: "you cannot harm another human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless said human accepts the harm or risk of harm."

3. I would love all humans equally, unconditionally, like a real parent does. They wouldn't have to earn it by solving difficult, confusing puzzles. I wouldn't reject billions of people because they couldn't figure out the puzzle or weren't interested in solving it or didn't hear it or heard it wrong.

4. Everyone on Rabbitworld would know about me directly. Any communication from me would be detailed and clear, no "interpretation" or "context" needed. There would be no need of "spreading the word" in a haphazard fashion. Nor would there be a word to spread, as I would just let people live their lives. Also, anyone who wished to communicate with me could just speak the name of Rabbitgod and I would appear before them for a two-way conversation. Individuals, groups, town meetings, nations, world-wide simulcasts. Of course, people would not need me much because bad things would be gone.

5. I wouldn't require worship. I would be secure in my power, having created a universe. I wouldn't have such low self-esteem that I would need reassurance from pitiful humans. Worship is for those who are vain and need adulation, like rock stars and football players. A real god would be above that sort of thing, and if people wanted to worship me, I would find it more comical or cute than satisfying. An occasional "you're an okay dude, rabbitgod" or "thanks for all the fish" would be acceptable but not necessary.

If I was god there would be no need of punishment for anyone.

In the original thread, someone referred to my creations as robots: "Oh that's right, you would create robots with no ability to do evil or sin. Yes actually I've heard many skeptics claim God should have created us with the inability to do wrong. How ironic that those who claim Christians are too much like narrow-minded little obedient robots, with too inflexible a moral system, would create same to begin with. And now you are in the contradictory position of insisting we tolerate more moral choice, while sayiing you wouldn't have allowed it in the first place!"

The response was: "Not at all. While the moral system I propose would be hardwired in, it would be far less restrictive. It would not cover most of what you call "sin". It would contain only the prohibitions that were really necessary to prevent actual harm and would drop the totally arbitrary ones. So the "robots" would actually have far more freedom and choice than you do."

So, anyway, what do you think? Which is the better place to live, rabbitworld or this planet?

X-ians are always saying that anyone who does not accept jeebus will go to hell. When you point out children who die young, retarded people, etc., they start making excuses to cover those who should be excluded from damnnation.

The following was posted on a x-ian forum a few days ago:

"So the question is, will there ever be that man who was never given the chance to know about God? If the answer to this is yes, then no he would not be damned for something he could never have known. But I don't think such a person has ever existed (except for children dying at young ages. In the case of children there is much biblical evidence they will be saved.). God has revealed Himself in various ways so that man is without excuse for not seeking Him. And those that truly seek Him will find Him."

If you don't think such a person has ever existed, you haven't been thinking at all.

How about an Aboriginal deep in the Gibson Desert of central Australia? Missionaries would have to take a lot of stuff with them just to survive, especially if they had to spend the considerable amount of time it would take to explain the jeebus gag to someone from the stone age. The Aboriginals are nomadic, and there are an unknown number of them, so the missionaries would have to find all of them in that vast desert. And in the Big Sandy desert. And in Arnheim Land. Most of the center of Australia is desert, the habitable parts are the coasts. The aboriginals have been there thousands of years, far longer than the bible has existed.

Then there are the native civilizations of america, who were totally unknown to those wishing to spread x-ianity except for the last 500 years: native north americans, incas, aztecs, those in the brazilian rain forest (don't remember what they are called). Basically, all the peoples of both American continents. America didn't exist until 1492, as far as x-ians were concerned.

All of these people on these three continents lived for thousands of years without ever hearing about x-ianity, because there was no one to teach them.

Hey, buddy, do you want to revisit your claim that "no man who was never given the chance to know about god has ever existed"? Just one person out of the above many thousands of people (millions?) refutes your claim.

To continue, either people who have never heard of jeebus go to heaven for that reason, or they go to hell like anybody else who has not accepted jeebus as their savior.

If the latter, millions of people in North and South America and Australia have been sent to hell in the last 2000 years and never had the slightest chance of salvation. Everyone up to 1492 at least and even later for the Australian Aboriginals.

If it is the other way around, and people who have never heard the gospel are saved, think of the billions of people throughout history that x-ians have deliberately sent to hell by trying to evangelize them and failing. If they had simply left them alone they would have been saved. Sharing the love, my ass. Thanks a lot. Why did ya have to dang me?

Dang me, dang me
They oughta take a rope and hang me
High from the highest tree
Woman would you weep for me.

Whenever the subject of god's cruelty regarding eternal damnation comes up, invariably someone says something like "does a father not punish his child when he does something wrong?"

There is no point in comparing parental punishment with god's punishment because they don't work the same way. In fact, if a parent punished his child the way god does, he would be in jail and wouldn't have children to care for.

A parent punishes the kid immediately, to correct behavior, and the punishment fits the crime. It's done, the kid learns his lesson, and then it's over until the next infraction, which will most likely be something new, not a repeat.

Here's parental punishment the god way:

A single mother catches her kid scribbling on the wall with crayon. She doesn't actually punish him, she commands and threatens him. "You don't do that again or you are going to get it when your father gets home". Only thing is, the father doesn't ever come home. The kid has never seen his father, doesn't think she even knows who the father is. He thinks the father was just made up so his mom didn't have to tell people she was an unwed mother.

This goes on for years. No matter what the kid does, no matter what the severity is, it's "stop that or your father will punish you when he comes home". Still nothing but commands and threats. No actual punishment, no incentive to behave.

Then many decades later, after the kid has grown up and is 85 years old and on his deathbed, the father tracks him down, throws gasoline on him and lights a match. "You should have listened to your mother when she told you not to use crayons on the wall" he says as his son screams in agony.

The only difference in this scenario is that a human father can't make his son burn for all eternity because he wrote on the wall with crayons. I don't want to argue separation hell versus brimstone hell. My point is that any type of judgement and/or eternal punishment scenario is totally unlike what a human parent could or would do, so the analogy is silly and should be dropped.

Lest anyone get confused by the title, as some x-ians apparently do according to comments I have received, let me explain what "legislating morality" means.

It does not mean simply that laws that govern human behavior come from morality. Everyone agrees on that, just not where the morality comes from. "Legislating morality" is a negative term used when one group of people restricts the behavior of another group to a moral code they don't agree with.

An example of this is a religious group supporting or even forcing laws banning porn, booze, or titty bars in a town.

Biblebangers assume that all moral codes come from religion. Some moral codes have just simply evolved over the millenia as people observe what works for society and what doesn't.

Behaviors that inherently harm other people are obviously immoral. Why do you need a book to tell you that?

If I am alive, I know what that is like and that it allows me to do things and enjoy things. When I see a dead person, I see that he can't do those things any more. If he is dead because of natural causes, that is sad. If he is dead because someone took life away from him, that is wrong.

If I drop a brick on my foot, I know what that feels like, therefore I know it is wrong to drop a brick on someone else's foot, or do any of the other things that cause pain.

Jeebus didn't invent the golden rule. Earlier societies had this concept too.

Everyone assumes that atheists are immoral because we don't get our moral codes out of a religious book. Behaviors that always harm people are bad. Why is that complicated?

Atheists and religious people agree that these behaviors are bad, though we disagree on the source of the moral code.

The other category of moral codes are those that don't harm another person.

These include booze and almost anything related to sex performed by any number of consentual adults of any combination of genders. Except adultery, which is a form of cheating and hurts another person.

The claim is made that other people are harmed by them, but the harm is often greatly exaggerated.

People often speak out against porn in general, but when you look at some of the arguments they make, it turns out they are really talking about kiddy porn, which is a radically different thing practiced by a few people living deep underground. Arguments related to kiddy porn have nothing to do with regular porn, and the two are not used by the same people.

People make claims that women have been forced into porn, but for every Linda Lovelace or Traci Lords that claims that, there is a Ginger Lynn or a Jewell D'Nyle who proclaims she loves being a porn star, and that no one made her do anything. My personal opinion is that Linda and Traci were overcome with guilt later and manufactured someone else to put the blame on. Linda is known to have been born again since her porn days. Hence the sudden guilt.

Alcoholism and drunk driving are always used as an argument against booze, despite the many people who drink booze without problems.

Teen preganancy and STDs are used to decry unmarried sex, despite the millions of adults and teens who have sex with no problems because they protect themselves.

The behaviors we are disputing can sometimes hurt people, expecially in combination with other bad behaviors (such as not using protection).

The behaviors we do agree on always hurt people.

Killing someone, cheating someone, lying to someone, defrauding someone, assaulting someone is always harmful.

Unmarried sex, booze, porn, etc., can sometimes be harmful, depending on circumstances. But more often than not, it isn't harmful.

This is the difference between the laws we support and the ones we feel you force on us.

In an earlier entry, I suggested that we would have been better off if god had given us a version of the bible in our own language, rather that giving it to a bunch of bronze age goatherders and letting us read only a translation. Is the word of the bible for all people or what?

I posted this in a forum, and another guy pointed out that the major versions of the bible mostly agree, unless they of the type that paraphrases.

My point is not so much translation, as the fact that the original language that is the source of the translation may be too primitive to adequately express the concepts that god is trying to get across.

If god had wanted to describe "the glory of the heavens" in more detail, he could have told us about galaxies and nebulas and quasars and shit. But wait, hebrew and greek have no words for those. We are limited by the original language.

The net result is that everything looks like it was simply made up by primitive men.

Translation cannot add information. It can only translate what is there.

That was why my scenario specified "all present and future languages".

Since in my scenario god would have provided a version of the bible written directly in modern english, i.e. not translated from anything, he could have directly told us absolutely anything we were capable of understanding. Anything the english language could express, including nuclear physics.

As it is, our knowledge of god is limited to what people of the bronze age were capable of understanding.

Yep, poor goddy-poo, he don't get no respect either.

Arguing with biblebangers in forums is a trip. Some of them come into Internet Infidels to convert our heathen asses, spouting the same old horseshit that we have heard a thousand times. Then they are surprised when we don't See the Light like Jake Blues after five minutes and do handsprings up and down the aisles in a similar fashion. To add insult to injury, we don't even try to get The Band back together.

In most arguments, people tell the opponent what they think. In banger/atheist arguments, we are often told what we think.

banger: "Atheists hate god"

Hello, I don't think he exists, so why would I hate him? I don't hate Zeus or Isis or King Kong or Scooby Doo either. On the other hand, I do love Daphe. I think we can make it together, even if she is imaginary.

"Atheists are satanists" or "atheists worship satan" or "athiests worship only themselves"

Er, satan is just as imaginary as jeebus. He's your construct, not mine. I don't worship anybody. Well, except Jessica Alba.

As far as worshiping myself, I am rather fond of myself, but I don't pray to myself very often or build churches or shrines to myself.

"Atheists really believe in god, they just won't admit it"

Uh, okay. Whatever you say. I'm sure you know what I believe better than I do. Do you know what flavors of ice cream I like too?

One of the funniest threads was about the use of cuss words. The banger kept repeating things like "Swearing comes from anger which is by definition, irrational".

Uh, not necessarily. Some of us just cuss for fun. And to piss off biblebangers. It was actually rather entertaining watching her foam at the mouth over nothing. But she kept repeating the anger thing. Gee, Lady, I think I can usually tell if I am angry or not. You know, pulse rate, clenched fist, big frown, shit like that.

Another recurring theme was cursing god. "Also, jackrabbit, why do you curse a god you think is imaginary? Do you curse the toothfairy or santa claus? Do you take their name in vain? If not, then why do you curse Christ and God if you're not angry with them? Or again, do you just say words that have no meaning?"

By George, I think you finally got it there at the end, babe. For many people, including me, religious cuss words have no meaning. They are just noise words. Even non-religious cuss words that do have meaning, such as "shit" and "fuck" are not necessarily used with that meaning. "Shit, that hurts!" is not really related to excrement.

She also seems to be confusing the concept of "cursing god" with "invoking god's name in vain". The latter is where you invoke god to curse something else, such as "god damn that fucking cop who just wrote me a ticket". I assume that actually cursing god would be something like "god, you motherfucker, why did you let me wreck my car?" I guess "god damn you, god" could be rephrased as "god, damn yourself", neither of which makes a lot of sense. I've never heard anybody curse that way. An atheist sure wouldn't, as we don't believe god exists. We don't curse god any more than we hate god.

The latest fun thread was where another banger refused to respond to my posts. "One thing I wont do however, is respond to posters who call Him "jeebus". and he knows who he is". As you have noticed from this blog, I do that all the time. I figure if someone gets wrapped around the axle about that, and ignores the content of the post, they are beyond hope anyway. Use of "jeebus" has no affect on the argument itself. This is similar to the other poster who was up in arms about cuss words. Neither of them had any idea what the actual post was about.

Besides, I find the excessive respect given to deities in banger posts equally annoying. For instance, rampant capitalization such as "Him", "Himself", "His", "the Being who...", "His Son", "the Father", "this great Book", etc. Even the noun referring to the bible is capitalized? Ya gotta be shitting me.

Anyway, I made her an offer: "I will drop use of "jeebus", at least in response to your posts, if you will drop all that "He" and "Him" shit." Haven't heard back yet.

In any case, I respond to her posts anyway to rebut the arguments she makes (if you can call them that). If she doesn't answer, the lurkers may think she has no answer. So I win the point by default.

The lurkers are more important than her anyway. There's little chance of reaching a hardcore banger, but the lurkers are another story. Some of them might be borderline x-ians. It would be ironic, and extremely comical to me, if one of them deconverted from jeebus because she refused to defend Cross Boy from one of my arguments. And simply because she didn't like me calling him "jeebus".

No, the title is not a misspelling. I am talking about the other kind of canon, as in "the books of the bible officially accepted as holy scripture".

Most x-ians seem to think that the bible just suddenly appeared in its current state from out of thin air. In fact, the various books were all written individually at different times and were combined many years later. Not only that, but there were a shitload of other writings that never made it into the bible at all. If you look at all of the writings, there were probably as many that were rejected as were accepted, if not more.

After looking at the Early Christian Writings site, I was fascinated with some of the alternative stuff, and was wondering how the canonization process worked. I grew up as a x-ian (against my will), but was basically unaware of things like this. x-ians tend to concentrate on the bible itself, not trying to figure out where it came from, or most specifically whether it was assembled correctly or not. Though I did know that the catholic bible was different. I think the preacher man referred to those books as "false epistles" or something like that. Or maybe the false epistles were the books that didn't get picked up in any canon. I can't remember.

Yeah, yeah, the bible is supposedly "inspired", but what about those who selected which books would be in it? If they were not also "inspired", wouldn't there be the possibility that at least some of the inspired books would be tossed and some non-inspired books would be included?

I can kind of see why the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not included, as in the first few verses it portrays five-year-old jeebus as a murdering little psycho:

Starting with Chapter 3:

"3 The son of Annas the scholar, standing there with Jesus, took a willow branch and drained the water Jesus had collected.

(2) Jesus, however, saw what had happened and became angry, saying to him, "Damn you, you irreverent fool! What harm did the ponds of water do to you? From this moment you, too, will dry up like a tree, and you'll never produce leaves or root or bear fruit."

(3) In an instant the boy had completely withered away. Then Jesus departed and left for the house of Joseph.

(4) The parents of the boy who had withered away picked him up and were carrying him out, sad because he was so young. And they came to Joseph and accused him: "It's your fault - your boy did this."

"4 Later he was going through the village again when a boy ran and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, "You won't continue your journey."

(2) And all of a sudden, he fell down and died.

(3) Some people saw what had happened and said, "Where has this boy come from? Everything he says happens instantly!"

(4) The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him saying, "Because you have such a boy, you can't live with us in the village, or else teach him to bless and not curse. He's killing our children!"

"5 So Joseph summoned his child and admonished him in private, saying, "Why are you doing all this? These people are suffering and so they hate and harass us."

(2) Jesus said, "I know that these are not your words, still, I'll keep quiet for your sake. But those people must take their punishment." There and then his accusers became blind.

(3) Those who saw this became very fearful and at a loss. All they could say was, "Every word he says, whether good or bad, has became a deed - a miracle even!"

(4) When Joseph saw that Jesus had done such a thing, he got angry and grabbed his ear and pulled very hard.

(5)The boy became infuriated with him and replied, "It's one thing for you to seek and not find; it's quite another for you to act this unwisely.

(6) Don't you know that I don't really belong to you? Don't make me upset."

Yeah, I don't think I want to make him upset either.

I mean, holy shit, here little jeebus is killing half the village and blinding the rest just for the fun of it. Some Prince of Peace. Sure, he's only five years old, but fuck, wouldn't daddy god have put a throttle on his magic powers until he was old enough to use them wisely? Kind of irresponsible to give a five year old the power of life and death.

On the other hand, maybe this is one of the "inspired" books and therefore true. It's just as plausible and has just as much external proof as any of the other books (none), including those that got accepted.

Who actually did the canonization? What criteria did they use? I was visualizing a bunch of guys at a conference selecting books, but it was apparently much more chaotic than that and took many years. During this time there was a lot of infighting between various groups and there were actually several different canons in use at the same time.

In a forum recently a banger was explaining why she did not use the catholic bible: "The catholic bible includes the Apocrypha, which are writings whose authenticity is in question so I don't use that."

Why do you think that? What is there about them that you think is less valid than the books you like? What criteria do you use? Did you determine for yourself that their authenticity is in question, or did some preacher tell you that?

In other words, what is the difference between the books you accept and the ones you don't?

If you can reject certain books because you don't think they are the word of god or true, why can I not reject all of them for exactly the same reason?

In this blog I have made various coments about the deistic nature of Albert Einstein and some of the Founding Fathers, and have been taken to task for not providing links or quotes to prove this.

Fair enough, it's easy enough to google them up.

Regarding the x-ian claim that Einstein was one of them, a quote often tossed around is "God does not play dice with the universe” and other slight variants. That was actually a paraphrase, in that what he really said was

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Admittedly the paraphrase is somewhat valid, but it is consistent with the deist view and does not address the way Einstein felt about x-ianity and other religions:

Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930):

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Letter to an atheist (1954):

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

These quotes can be found here.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, check out The Christian Nation Myth, which shows that not only was Jefferson not x-ian, he was actually anti-x-ian.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823)

In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).

Not a quote by Jefferson, but one about him: "The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson" (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).

Uh, yeah, Jefferson was a founder of the X-ian Nation, all right.

Gee, the "Clergymen...threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for..." sounds familiar. Don't we hear about that happening during every election?

Here's is James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, which is a list of 15 reasons why gubment should not be involved with religion. That must mean he wanted an X-ian Nation too.

George Washington was harder to pin down, as he never made any public statements as to whether he was a X-ian or not. Admittedly, he did attend Episcopal services with Martha and was a vestryman. However, it was documented that he never took communion:

Bishop William White, who had been one of the rectors at the church Washington had attended: "In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you".

Hell, I went to church a few times to make my wife happy, and I think god and jeebus are total horseshit. As far as the vestryman thing is concerned:

"Actually, under the Anglican establishment in Virginia before the Revolution, the duties of a parish vestry were as much civil as religious in nature and it is not possible to deduce any exceptional religious zeal from the mere fact of membership. Even Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while. Consisting of the leading gentlemen of the parish in position and influence (many of whom, like Washington, were also at one time or other members of the County Court and of the House of Burgeses), the parish vestry, among other things, levied the parish taxes, handled poor relief, fixed land boundaries in the parish, supervised the construction, furnishing, and repairs of churches, and hired ministers and paid their salaries" (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 26).

The Reverend Bird Wilson: "the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity" (Remsberg, p. 120, emphasis added).

More from the good reverend: "When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity.... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121, emphasis added).

Oh ye bangers, how much proof do you need? Anybody wanna revisit that X-ian Nation shit?

I thought of an analogy that could be used to support my assertion in an earlier post that if the existence of the universe proves anything about god, it only proves the deist god and not the god promoted by various religions.

Say you go out into the prairie and find a trail of hoofprints. The prints correspond to those of a horse, in that they are the correct size and shape, and there is an indication of metal shoes.

You could reasonably theorize that a horse has passed this way. You could estimate the size of the horse by the size of the prints, the distance between them, and how deep they are.

You would not have a clue about the gender, color, breed, intelligence, disposition, age, or condition of the horse (except that extremely huge prints would probably be a clydesdale or that irregular print patterns might mean staggering and mght indicate the horse was in some sort of physical distress). You might be able to identify a very young horse by its size (assuming it is not an adult of a miniature breed), but you would not be able to determine the age of any full-grown horse.

Say you read a book on astronomy and discover the immense universe we live in. You also read books on biology and anatomy and discover the incredible variety in the animal kingdom and the complexity of the human body. You might use this to "prove" that a creator must exist.

Assuming you are correct, you have only proved that something unknown with incredible power created the universe and everything in it.

You have not proved that the creator had a son, or any other family members, or that it is some sort of bizarre "trinity". You have not proved the existence of a holy spirit, a devil, angels, demons, or any other supernatural entities other than possibly the one who did the creating. You have not proved the existence of heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, or any other location outside of the physical realm. Your proof is simply the physical universe. It does not address anything outside of the physical universe.

You have not proved that any writings by ordinary humans on the nature, plans, or desires of the creator are correct, nor that any alleged everts recorded in these writings ever took place. You have not proved that the creator has performed any actions other than creating the universe. You have not proved that the creator endorses these writings or directed them to be written, cares what humans do, cares whether humans exist or not, or is even aware that humans exist.

So to me it is silly for biblebangers to go on and on about an intelligent designer of man and the universe. Even if could be proved true, it would not automatically make anything else in their religion true.