Ask yourself this. Suppose you knew someone that was aware of a very great evil being performed, children were being abused, people being sold into slavery, something so truly horrible and evil that any decent person would recoil from it in horror. This person could stop this evil with no risk to himself and almost no effort, yet did nothing?

Legally, he (or she) would be an accessory to the crime. Would you perhaps think this person as bad as those actually performing the evil? Well, that is a good description of the actions of a christian god. Don’t excuse this with that old saw, “The ways of god are mysterious and unknowable to man.” That’s an evasion used by theists for so long that it’s amazing they are not ashamed to trot it out time after time. But no argument, no matter how crude, seems to embarrass theists.

Have I de-brainwashed anyone this way? Of course not. Willful ignorance defies all facts and logic. As I say in my list of Universal Truths, “Man’s most precious possessions are his illusions. A person will surrender their property, family, and even their lives before their illusions.”

White propaganda generally comes from an openly identified source, and is characterized by gentler methods of persuasion, such as standard public relations techniques and one-sided presentation of an argument. Black propaganda is identified as being from one source, but is in fact from another. This is most commonly to disguise the true origins of the propaganda, be it from an enemy country or from an organization with a negative public image. Grey propaganda is propaganda without any identifiable source or author. A major application of grey propaganda is making enemies believe falsehoods using straw arguments: As phase one, to make someone believe “A”, one releases as grey propaganda “B”, the opposite of “A”. In phase two, “B” is discredited using some strawman. The enemy will then assume “A” to be true. [false dichotomy]

I thought Black Propaganda was pretending to be the Other Guys AND saying something vile, like the anti-choice people who pretended to be pro-choice and advocated for infanticide.

And yes, I remember the pastor who pretended to be an atheist and said stupid things about what atheism meant, e.g. that he had no morals. So that was black propaganda. He wasn’t even ashamed to be caught at it. I guess impersonating and vilifying and lying are just part of a day’s work for him.

First you assert that you are or were an atheist by saying “I was just thinking that maybe God does exist. Maybe I’ve been wrong this whole time”

But then go on to say

“We already know that it’s in his character to lead people one way and then screw them over for it, just like what fossils and proof of evolution is doing to us right now.”

That quote assumes three things first that there is a god, second you know something of his charecter and third that fossils and proof of evolution are “screwing us over”.

The first two are statements I highly doubt any atheist would make. The third is pretty obviously creationist mumbo jumbo.

You then end with a vieled threat “What if he purposefully wants us to think he doesn’t exist just so he could have the last laugh when we die and burn in hell forever? That is entirely within his character, and that is scary.”

Does anyone else remember seeing articles about that pastor who went around and posted fake blog comments and forum posts impersonating an atheist?

http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/baptist-pastor-caught-lying.html

This is definitely reminiscent of the same thing. Whoever wrote this isn’t beginning to believe in god they already do and want you to as well. They simply open there comment with “I was just thinking that maybe God does exist. Maybe I’ve been wrong this whole time.” to influence you with an “I’m on your side” approach.

Fucking deceitful bastards.

If God could inspire the writing of an infallible word and create the entire universe to test our faith in that word. Why shouldn’t we believe the alternative: That God created a universe operating under simple laws that is both old and vast and planted a book to test our faith against that creation

Once you accept that God could be deceptive in the natural world, you have to accept that any holy book could be in error.

Of course, since this position can neither be proven nor disproven, I would suggest against using it in arguments involving LOGIC.

And with the advent of the Star Wars (Cra)prequels, it’s almost getting as out of hand. So i guess when any type of fictitious mythology is concerned, there are bound to be those who will decry anything not in keeping with their fundamental understandings and viewings of their object of obsession. I mean, it did well at the box office, but some of the vehemence against the new “Star Trek” movie by Hardcore Trekkers made the anti-gay stance by religious bigots pale in comparison… ;-)

~JYH

We can prove that astrological bodies are a really, really, long way away. So long, that the light from them takes quite a while to reach earth. A long while. So long that it means that Ken Ham et al are suggesting that the earth was created billions of years AFTER the rest of the universe! Aren’t they? How do they get around that point? Do they actually suggest that a god created the universe and then 14 or so billions of years later thought, “oh, I’d better get around to that earth project I’ve been putting off”? Or, and this is scarier, do they think the universe isn’t very big, somehow? ….hmmmmmm

So if you’re still with me: non-interventionist means no communication. No communication means no idea what the god is thinking. Any attempt by people to tell you what that god wants from your behaviour can be dismissed because they made it up (because, don’t forget, it’s a non-interventionist god that doesn’t communicate with us – in any form whatsoever).

Dawkins deals with this in more detail in the God Delusion.

That being said, I do not think she has a very high education level, at least in the sciences. :)