Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer

[moe]

Thus, my question to you again: In other words, you are telling me that you believe that the universe is impossible (or unlikely) without an intelligent God.

Unlikley. In fact highly unlikely. As stated the proof of actual Macro Evolution lies not in Labs but in observation in nature. Thus the fossil record. And it is not just a few missing links that need to be found. There actually Billions of missing links

To say impossible one have to be able to review the entire body of evidence including evidence not yet discovered.

And with this I am ending our current conversation. It is nothing more than an echo in the room in post after post of the same evidence being presented.

I have stated my case with evidence and links to support my evidence as to why I believe what I believe.

And with that I wish you a happy new year and good will in all that you do

Moe

 

[Orion]

Moe, I might have agreed with you 50 years ago, but with the advent of observable genetic science, you have been proven wrong over and over again. In fact, genetics have even proved evolutionists wrong on many points because familial relationships that were assumed to have existed between certain species are relationships that don't actually exist. In fact, there are genetic relationships between certain species that are just downright unexpected.

The science of evolution is a science that in of itself is evolving over time. It started with Darwin's original observation of the finches and that idea prompted many more researchers and scientists to conduct their own observations. Now in the modern world we are technologically capable of testing historical observations via genetics, combined with looking at evidence gathered by the other sciences (i.e. fossil records). Also, in species that reproduce extremely fast (i.e. fruit flies), it is possible to directly observe adaptive changes occuring over time.

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that the dinosaur bones we re-assemble and put on display in museums are not accurate because we cannot see the living dinosaurs in action. We know this is not the case because not only do the bones lign up after careful research, but we can also study their living relatives to better understand the mechanisms of their bodily makeup. For instance, the motion and ligaments in the arms of velociraptors can be correlated to modern descendants such as hawks. This is one example of indirect evidence proving evolution correct, in addition to the direct evidence which now exists.

I don't believe that the current understanding of evolution is in any way perfect because knowledge itself is a constant experience in growth and changing of ideas, but it has come a long way in proving itself and it is certainly more applicable than Biblical references.

 

[scourge99]

Unlikley. In fact highly unlikely. As stated the proof of actual Macro Evolution lies not in Labs but in observation in nature. Thus the fossil record.

But no scientist claims to know based on empirical evidence the manner in which life came to be. So your claim that it is unlikely is claiming that it can't happen in a way we haven't discovered yet, if it is even possible.

And it is not just a few missing links that need to be found. There actually Billions of missing links

Is that surprising?

"In order to become a fossil, several things must happen. First, you must die in the right place. Only about 15 percent of rocks can preserve fossils, so it’s no good keeling over on a future site of granite. In practical terms the deceased must become buried in sediment, where it can leave an impression, like a leaf in wet mud, or decompose without exposure to oxygen, permitting the molecules in its bones and hard parts (and very occasionally softer parts) to be replaced by dissolved minerals, creating a petrified copy of the original. Then as the sediments in which the fossil lies are carelessly pressed and folded and pushed about by Earth’s processes, the fossil must somehow maintain an identifiable shape. Finally, but above all, after tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of years hidden away, it must be found and recognized as something worth keeping.
Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today—that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each—will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. "
~ A Short History of Nearly everything by Bill Bryson

Note: Bryson (the author) isn't a scientist. He merely collects the information from scientists and presents it in his book.

To say impossible one have to be able to review the entire body of evidence including evidence not yet discovered.

Agreed.

And with this I am ending our current conversation. It is nothing more than an echo in the room in post after post of the same evidence being presented.

I think things are progressing quite well. We've established that:

1) You believe particular aspects of evolution are not a good explanation
2) You don't know for certain and you use faith for things which you believe aren't explained by science
3) Not all atheists have disbelief/non-belief for the same reasons
4) The limitations of testimony and empirical evidence
5) etc...

I can't force you to debate.

I have stated my case with evidence and links to support my evidence as to why I believe what I believe.

What I still don; understand is why you think "faith" in the Bible and your religious beliefs are a rational thing to have.

Why isn't "I don't know" a superior answer instead of believing unverifiable testimony?

And with that I wish you a happy new year and good will in all that you do

Moe

Happy new year to you too.

 

[moe]

Moe, I might have agreed with you 50 years ago, but with the advent of observable genetic science, you have been proven wrong over and over again. In fact, genetics have even proved evolutionists wrong on many points because familial relationships that were assumed to have existed between certain species are relationships that don't actually exist. In fact, there are genetic relationships between certain species that are just downright unexpected.

What you are referring to is called molecular convergence. It is not a plus for evolution. It is a minus. As you correctly state evolutionists did not expect this. The problem for Evolutionists is these convergences seem to indicate independent origins. Molecular Convergence rather than showing common descent from a single ancestor cell instead shows a common blue print used across species. All living things have DNA with the A,G,C and T. But try breeding across the DNA barrier. For years much was made of the similarities between Chimps and man.

Human-chimp DNA difference trebled - 23 September 2002 - New Scientist
We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

Even 95 % sounds pretty impressive doesn't it? Only a 5% difference. Until you consider that it is 5% of 3 billion base pairs that are missing. or 150 million base pairs.

The science of evolution is a science that in of itself is evolving over time. It started with Darwin's original observation of the finches and that idea prompted many more researchers and scientists to conduct their own observations. Now in the modern world we are technologically capable of testing historical observations via genetics, combined with looking at evidence gathered by the other sciences (i.e. fossil records). Also, in species that reproduce extremely fast (i.e. fruit flies), it is possible to directly observe adaptive changes occuring over time.

Key word is time. Basic idea is that in 1 million years there are 30,000 human generations. The E.coli bacteria produced 30,000 generations in 16 years
Scientists Follow Bacteria for 30,000 Generations - Science - redOrbit
Genetic mutation does not happen very often and when it does occur the mutation is generally negative and not positive. The mutation either does nothing or is actually harmful. Even using the 7 million year primitive primate to modern man, All the positive mutations necessary to evolve into what we are to day?? No where near enough time

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that the dinosaur bones we re-assemble and put on display in museums are not accurate because we cannot see the living dinosaurs in action. We know this is not the case because not only do the bones lign up after careful research, but we can also study their living relatives to better understand the mechanisms of their bodily makeup. For instance, the motion and ligaments in the arms of velociraptors can be correlated to modern descendants such as hawks. This is one example of indirect evidence proving evolution correct, in addition to the direct evidence which now exists.

That is quite a leap saying that a hawk is a descendant of the velociraptors don't you think? And besides they are not always accurate. And in fact they have been changed many times as new fossils are found. Unlike evolution, we have full skeleton dino fossils to go by and even mummified remains of dinos with skin and organs still present.

Info on Dino's and reconstruction technique's

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4738Q: How do scientists know how dinosaur bones should be put back together?
A: Putting bones together isn't too hard if you have a complete skeleton to compare it to. Otherwise it can be tough. Usually the shape of the bone tells you what body part it is. Mostly scientists don't put dinosaurs back together. It's too expensive, the bones are too valuable for studying, and you rarely get a complete skeleton anyway. (Don Lessem)

Mummified Dino

Rare Mummified Dinosaur Unearthed: Contains Skin, and Maybe Organs, Muscle

I don't believe that the current understanding of evolution is in any way perfect because knowledge itself is a constant experience in growth and changing of ideas, but it has come a long way in proving itself and it is certainly more applicable than Biblical references.

You are saying that the biblical references that say that life began in an environment of breathable air with food and water materials for shelter etc do not make scientific sense?

Moe

 

[Orion]

What you are referring to is called molecular convergence. It is not a plus for evolution. It is a minus. As you correctly state evolutionists did not expect this.

That's not what I said at all. I said some species that were assumed to related are in fact not. Molecular convergence proves evolution right because even if two species are unrelated, they can evolve the same trait due to environmental factors.

The problem for Evolutionists is these convergences seem to indicate independent origins.

Not in every case though. Many species that have similar traits are in fact related.

Molecular Convergence rather than showing common descent from a single ancestor cell instead shows a common blue print used across species. All living things have DNA with the A,G,C and T. But try breeding across the DNA barrier. For years much was made of the similarities between Chimps and man.

A blue print implies a plan, and that is conjecture. No one can go back to the very beginning, not even science, but based on historical evidence that still exists, we can make more reasonable assumptions about what might have happened early on. So in terms of huge periods of time in history that we don't have access to, I readily admit that we can't answer those questions right now.

Even 95 % sounds pretty impressive doesn't it? Only a 5% difference. Until you consider that it is 5% of 3 billion base pairs that are missing. or 150 million base pairs.

Key word is time. Basic idea is that in 1 million years there are 30,000 human generations. The E.coli bacteria produced 30,000 generations in 16 years
Scientists Follow Bacteria for 30,000 Generations - Science - redOrbit
Genetic mutation does not happen very often and when it does occur the mutation is generally negative and not positive. The mutation either does nothing or is actually harmful. Even using the 7 million year primitive primate to modern man, All the positive mutations necessary to evolve into what we are to day?? No where near enough time

Well there definitely is a discrepancy between our last evolutionary ancestor and us, but that doesn't necessarily preclude evolution. Anthropology is ongoing, there may be information not yet discovered. This is why I say the science of evolution is in of itself still learning.

That is quite a leap saying that a hawk is a descendant of the velociraptors don't you think?

Not really. All birds in general come from an ancient lineage. Raptors, or birds of prey, can be reasonably compared to certain dinosaur species.

And besides they are not always accurate. And in fact they have been changed many times as new fossils are found. Unlike evolution, we have full skeleton dino fossils to go by and even mummified remains of dinos with skin and organs still present.

I agree... the nature of science is to make acceptable changes once new information arises. What you put forth on the invalidity of evolution isn't suggesting a change though, it's trying to suggest that the system as a whole is flawed. I don't claim to be an evolutionary biologist... I only did the basics in school as part of my biology courses, but the wealth of data collected to date seems reasonable to me. Again, it's not perfect, but I think the foundational ideas are correct.

You are saying that the biblical references that say that life began in an environment of breathable air with food and water materials for shelter etc do not make scientific sense?

No, that's you putting words in my mouth. If you would like to rephrase the question to demonstrate genuine intellectual curiosity about my mindset, I'd be happy to answer it.

 

[moe]

No, that's you putting words in my mouth. If you would like to rephrase the question to demonstrate genuine intellectual curiosity about my mindset, I'd be happy to answer it.

I do apologize if you feel I have put words in your mouth. Please explain to me your position.

My own position can be found in post 289 on this page of this thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ts-don-t-too-readily-dismiss-believer-29.html

Moe

 

[Cephus]

First it needs to be realized that the NT was not written the day after the ascension of Christ. It is true that the original transcripts of the NT were written over a period of time. But all of the original manuscripts of the 27 books of NT were all finished before 100 ad.

That's simply a claim, the fact is, we have no extant fragmentary manuscripts of *ANY* NT book prior to about 125CE, with many of them not making an appearance until after the middle of the second century. We don't have a complete copy of the New Testament until the 4th century with the Codex Sinaiticus.

Papias Bishop of Hierapolis published a 5 volume work in about 130 ad in which he discusses the origin and authorship of the gospels.

Assuming you believe what Irenaeus and Eusebius say about his writings, we simply do not have them today. Therefore, anything we hear about what Papias had to say is at least second-hand knowledge. Let's not forget that Eusebius had nothing good to say about Papias, he most certainly was not a fan of his work, calling him "a man of small mental capacity".

It would be rather difficult for Papias to publish a historical work about the origins of the gospels in 130 ad if they were truly in fact written long after the resurrection of Jesus by people who never knew Jesus.

If Jesus actually died around 30CE and Papias actually wrote around 130CE, that leaves 100 years, which is more than the lifespan of most people at the time between the two. Secondly, if we're going to assume that Papias was the disciple of Presbyter John, as the stories go, that only assumes that the stories that John told were true and accurate and since John wasn't an eyewitness of any of the stories, we're again going by oral tradition, not by direct eyewitness.

In fact the entire NT is considered to be by far the most historically substantiated ancient document we posses.

Um, no. While I'm sure a lot of so-called "scholars" may want to think, based on their faith rather than facts, that it's historically substantiated, it's simply not so. There are still a lot of questions about who wrote what and exactly when, at best we can know that a particular fragment of a particular book was written before a particular date because we have said fragment extant today. Just because we have a fragment of Matthew, for instance, that doesn't mean the entire book of Matthew existed at that time, many of the books were piecemealed together over time. Since we do not have the originals of any of the books in the Bible, we can only go by what physical evidence we're able to find.

Secondly, your source makes the common mistake of thinking that ancient historical tradition is the same as modern-day historical writing. People wrote myths and legends and superstitions into their narratives and that was expected by those that read them. Writers were writing about gods and goddesses and magic as explanations of perfectly natural events, certainly the writers of the New Testament, whoever they were, added common mythic elements to their writings in order to "compete" with the surrounding mythologies, we see those threads running all through the Gospels. "Your god had a virgin birth? Oh yeah? Mine did too!"

Third, communication was very slow back in those days, there was no Internet, there was no mass market newspapers, everything was done word-of-mouth, stories told by travellers coming from other towns. You are assuming several things that cannot be demonstrated.

1. That the people who may have disagreed ever heard the stories of a far-off religion's claims or cared enough to refute them.

2. That if they did disagree, they had the ability to write down their refutations. Many people were illiterate, telling your neighbor "hey, that guy is full of crap" doesn't survive through the centuries.

3. Even if they did write it down, that it survived to this day. Not only do we have the obvious difficulties of writings from the time, even with the best preservation, remaining in one piece today, but we have the fact that the church actively purged as many heretical documents as they could get their hands on. Certainly anything that said "that Jesus guy was a fraud" would have been the first to go.

In the end, you can't defend the claims you're making, but that's hardly a surprise.

 

[moe]

That's simply a claim, the fact is, we have no extant fragmentary manuscripts of *ANY* NT book prior to about 125CE, with many of them not making an appearance until after the middle of the second century. We don't have a complete copy of the New Testament until the 4th century with the Codex Sinaiticus.

So what you are saying is that when the early church fathers mention gospels and letters by actual name we should not trust them? Even though many of these church fathers quoted from the NT books of their time and they match the teachings of our own NT of today ? Ancient historians mention and debate them as already existing in the past but we should ignore them to? At least until the 4th century it seems anyway.

Some how these wily devils actually knew the names of the letters and books of the NT and verses in them before they were even written? All a big conspiracy so they could lose their lives as martyrs attempting to preserve and pass on knowledge that they knew was not true?

You do know that if something say were to happen to all actual NT manuscripts fragments etc that we could still reconstruct the entire NT from the NT quotes the early church fathers used in their own writings? Not to mention paraphrases and teachings that are based on the NT?

We should disregard the dates methods and the findings of professional textual critics and agree with you???

Do you think that the copying of the originals while actual eye witnesses to the events being written about were still alive were left to some backwoods half educated peasants to doodle as they saw fit and when it came time to recopy another generation of half educated peasants made adjustments where they saw fit to make them? You do not think that great care and attention was given to recopying the originals? That they were not considered valuable? You do know that most textual critics do agree that even with the variants between manuscripts that every doctrine the church holds true today is still intact and is descended from the originals? And many of these variants are minor. Two manuscripts that word a verse slightly different but with no effect on the meaning of the verse. A misspelled word.

Are there disputed additions? Sure things like the Johannine comma and the Jesus and the adulterous woman in John 8 are in debate. Even Christian scholars acknowledge that most early manuscripts do not include these.

But if you have some kind of solid inside knowledge that the last book of the NT was not completed before 100 ad and major revisions have been made in the original writings since then to make certain things appear that were not in the originals then you have a promising future as a counter Christian textual critic.

If there was such a later date writing conspiracy to bring into the church all kinds of pagan rituals and justify other teachings and what not then why are such things not only not taught in the NT but actually frowned upon in the NT? That is why Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. All their extra teachings, customs and traditions are taught from writings outside the bible . If there was some kind of movement to add these kinds of things to hide the original teachings. To introduce Paganisms, should not there be some teaching about rosaries? Or making a crucifix and placing it on top of a meeting place? Or that Mary should be sent a little prayer and do not forget the saints? Or that the clergy should all wear certain garments? Or that we should hold certain feasts and holy days? Or that it is forbidden for priests to marry? Or that we MUST assemble on Sunday and follow certain rules and regulations in our meetings? If there was intentional tampering by the church to change the NT to more fit what they wanted it to say then they really did a pretty poor job. If they would have done it right there would have never been a Protestant reformation.

Or if Jesus really was just a misunderstood Jew, just another teacher and only a man, Then why aren't the Mosaic requirements taught as something that all Christians must obey? All Christians must be circumcised after Jewish tradition? You do realize that the first Christians were Jews and Gentile proselytes to Judaism don't you? Why does the NT teach that we are not required to follow any of the Jewish religious customs? Why would these Jewish men and women who were raised in Judaism and feared that if they did not obey the Mosaic law that they would be completely disenfranchised by their own people and seen as blasphemer's condemned by God whom they obviously did believe in to eternal damnation turn their backs on every thing they were raised from birth to believe in and walk away from their lives as Jews and suffer being crucified upside down. losing their heads to an executioners ax, boiled in oil, fed to wild animals and leave us a written record as to why they chose to do it? Do you really think they would have done any such thing if there was never a Jesus or he was just a another teacher ? That they simply wanted to teach and preserve a lie and were willing to die doing it?

Not only are your views not supported by research of professional textual critics. Your views do not even stand the test of common sense

Moe

 

[Cephus]

Some how these wily devils actually knew the names of the letters and books of the NT and verses in them before they were even written?

You know, that would be interesting since the New Testament wasn't broken up into verses until the 1557 translation done by William Wittingham. The OT has used a Jewish system of section, paragraph and phrasal divisions that are largely maintained in the Christian Bible, but certainly not the NT.

The fact that you don't even know that proves that you're just quoting out of other people's work, entirely without credit.

Anyone surprised?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Anyone surprised?

Yea, I'm surprised you added this inane comment at the bottom of the above post. Why waste your time to write that? Sure, moe doesn't know everything, but who does? Surely you don't think you do, so don't see what warrant you have to act like an ass. I know your a civilized person, so why not be civilized and treat each other with respect? If you think you are so above us christians, why haven't you taken the high ground?

 

[moe]

You know, that would be interesting since the New Testament wasn't broken up into verses until the 1557 translation done by William Wittingham. The OT has used a Jewish system of section, paragraph and phrasal divisions that are largely maintained in the Christian Bible, but certainly not the NT.

The fact that you don't even know that proves that you're just quoting out of other people's work, entirely without credit.

Anyone surprised?

On the contrary I am well aware of it.

LOL .Pretty tough argument you have there Cephus. It is common practice to identify the ancient quotes etc by the verse system we use today, For example

NT Manuscripts - Papyri
Location/Catalog Number
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 258A

Contents
1 Corinthians 1:17-22, 2:9-12, 2:14, 3:1-3, 3:5-6, 4:3-5:5, 5:7-8, 6:5-9, 6:11-18, 7:3-6, 7:10-14, with even the surviving verses often damaged (so much so that Tischendorf was unable to tell whether the fragments he had were of five or six leaves).

Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the seventh century. Some older manuals give its date as the fifth century, but this was based on comparison with uncial manuscripts; a comparison with the style of papyri resulted in the change.

Description and Text-type
Aland and Aland list P11 as Category II. Von Soden listed its text as "H or I."

In fact the text of P11 seems fairly ordinary (though its fragmentary nature makes a firm determination difficult; the Nestle text, for instance, cites it explicitly only about fifteen times, most often with the Alexandrian group A C 33, but also, with the Byzantine and "Western" texts; there appears to be some slight kinship with the later members of Family 1739, particularly 1881. Overall, the best description of its text is probably "mixed," although most of the readings are old. It does not appear to have any immediate relatives).

The most noteworthy thing about P11, therefore, is not its text but its history: It was the first biblical papyrus to be discovered (Tischendorf observed it in 1862), and the only one to be cited in Tischendorf (as Q).
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

As to what I am referring concerning the early church fathers is along this line.
BIBLE VERSIONS ... Church Fathers

Quote: John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the New Testament in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before A.D.325. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world." (Ref: M1)

So how could there be 86,000 pre 325 AD citations from a body of work that had not yet been written?

Moe

 

[Graffight]

You know, that would be interesting since the New Testament wasn't broken up into verses until the 1557 translation done by William Wittingham. The OT has used a Jewish system of section, paragraph and phrasal divisions that are largely maintained in the Christian Bible, but certainly not the NT.

The fact that you don't even know that proves that you're just quoting out of other people's work, entirely without credit.

Anyone surprised?

Funny how he has nothing to say about anything else in the post...:roll:

 

[Cephus]

It is common practice to identify the ancient quotes etc by the verse system we use today,

Come on, you got caught, what you said was this:

Some how these wily devils actually knew the names of the letters and books of the NT and verses in them before they were even written?

Obviously those "wily devils" could never have known the verses, as you claim, before they were even written. Admit you screwed up and move on.

 

[Graffight]

Come on, you got caught, what you said was this:



Obviously those "wily devils" could never have known the verses, as you claim, before they were even written. Admit you screwed up and move on.

still he doesn't respond to the important stuff...lol

 

[moe]

Come on, you got caught, what you said was this:



Obviously those "wily devils" could never have known the verses, as you claim, before they were even written. Admit you screwed up and move on.

I truly do not understand why you insist on using a non argument to support your position. This silly contention of yours that I do not know when chapter and verse were first introduced into the bible is asinine at best. Especially when you consider the origins and history of the bible are common topics in Sunday school classes pulpit sermons and church bible study nights not only in America but around the world. It is not a big secret.

Anyway regardless of your motives for not actually addressing the issue's , Anyone who is truly interested in an opposing view to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus or the Jesus Seminar's approach to textual criticism may I suggest,

Misquoting Truth written by Timothy Paul Jones. [Intervarsity Press 2007 ] Jones rebuts Ehrman concerning NT manuscripts. But he does it in a very down to earth easy to read format in only 150 pages. He goes into detail concerning the additions and changes in the various manuscripts and there are some changes. But they are insignificant to the overall truth of the NT. Nothing to fret about.

Moe

 

[DarwinsGauntlet]

Here's an interesting post i just read from John Shore. He has some really good perspective on Christianity, I agree with a lot of what he says. Enjoy



Here's an interesting post by John Shore

There's an awesome disparity between the real estate of the mind yet to be claimed by Science, and making a case to believe in a divine creator. How do you justify that jump?

You can't conclusively explain The Taos Hum for example, so does that mean you should believe in Thor, or Zombies? As a rule of thumb, it's unnecessary to "go native" because you don't understand something, when you can actively seek the answers along with Science, and accept the question is still open. The notion that an answer is required for you to comfortably function is as fatuous as the faith belief itself.

Science has progressively over time, taken ownership of a whole host of religious claims of the once believed unanswerable. Science has battered divine creation and theological claims to the point of obsoleteness century after century with its eyes fixed on the future. Neuroscientists have been charting the map of the human mind piece by piece, revealing more and more each decade that passes. There's no reason to believe we won't have all the answers some day. Isn't it an exciting and noble pursuit to realize the end of that, and wouldn't you want to revel in the glory of its truth when we do arrive there? Do you really want to be in on the delusional bandwagon of primitive superstition when progress bears its fruit?

 

[MDM]

Re: the OP - flawed and not worth discussing.

A lot of interesting posts in the rest of the thread though.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

Here's an interesting post i just read from John Shore. He has some really good perspective on Christianity, I agree with a lot of what he says. Enjoy



Here's an interesting post by John Shore

I'm not going to read all nine million posts here.

I'll assume that somebody already shot down the preposterous notion that atheists have no love in their lives.

 

[MDM]

...
I'll assume that somebody already shot down the preposterous notion that atheists have no love in their lives.

Of course atheists have love! - A love for KILLING!!!

Oh, no wait, I'm thinking of ninja.
Never mind.

YouTube - Ask A Ninja: Question 9 "Ninja Love"